Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

TEIGNMOUTH QUAY COMPANY BILL (By Order)

SOUTH YORKSHIRE LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT BILL (By Order)

BEXLEY LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

SHOREHAM PORT AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 8 May.

MILFORD HAVEN PORT AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [18 February], That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Debate to he resumed on Thursday 8 May.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (STANSTED) BILL (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [24 February], That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Debate to he resumed on Thursday 8 May.

HARWICH PARKESTON QUAY BILL (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [28 February], That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Debate to be resumed on Thursday 8 May.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

Unemployment

Mr. Ron Brown: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about unemployment in Northern Ireland.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): At 6 March 1986, the latest date for which figures are available, there were 124,403 unemployed claimants in Northern Ireland. The unemployment rate was 21·4 per cent. I announced, in March, a £20 million package of enterprise and unemployment measures, which is expected to create up to 3,500 extra jobs in its first year of operation.

Mr. Brown: Was not John De Lorean responsible for making many people unemployed in Northern Ireland? Will the Minister take steps to ensure that that individual is extradited to this country and placed on trial? Will he contact the American President and put that view to him, remembering, after the sordid Libyan affair, that one good turn deserves another?

Dr. Boyson: That was an interesting question, and one that I had not expected. Last July, when there was a debate on the De Lorean affair, we said that the Government would do all that they could to bring De Lorean to trial if he ever touched down in the country. I take note of what the hon. Gentlman says, and undoubtedly other Ministers and Members will have heard it as well.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Would not unemployment be assisted far more greatly in Northern Ireland if the example set by companies such as Shorts, and Harland and Wolff, which do so much to provide jobs for people in the Province and exports to the world, were emulated by others in the Province?

Dr. Boyson: I entirely recently agree with my hon. Friend. Last year Shorts brought out the Tucano plane, recently there were sales of aircraft to British Midland Airways Ltd., and the contract for the auxiliary oiler replenishment vessel went to Harland and Wolff last week. We trust that other firms in Northern Ireland, with the same enterprise and backing of the work force, will gain such contracts here, in Northern Ireland, and throughout the world.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Let us see whether the Minister expects this question. In considering the factors that are likely to have a favourable effect on employment in the Province, will the Government not overlook the importance of transport action between the Province and the mainland, particularly the urgency of ensuring that use is made of the roll-on/roll-off facilities for transport in the port of Warrenpoint?

Dr. Boyson: I know that the right hon. Gentleman is rightly concerned about Warrenpoint and its facilities. I also know that, in so far as we are on the periphery of the European market, we require all the transportation if we are to sell goods, particularly heavy goods, in the question of that market. I take totally what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman will never make Secretary of State for Education and Science with grammar like that.

Dr. Boyson: I am glad that I have at least one supporter.
I have another point to make. At 2 pm today, unfortunately for Northern Ireland, Rothmans announced that it is pulling out of everything but cigar manufacturing there, which means 800 more unemployed. I know that that will be deplored throughout the House.

Mr. Michael Brown: On that point, does my hon. Friend agree that that makes so important the representations that we made to the Treasury about the level of tobacco taxation, because we foresaw what eventually could occur as a result of the increase in tobacco duty?

Dr. Boyson: My hon. Friend's point was mentioned in the press releases issued by Rothmans and by the Department. There has been a fall in the demand for tobacco because of the social and health consequences of smoking. There has also been an increase of imports into the United Kingdom market.

Mr. Mallon: Can the Minister give any assessment of the damage that has been done to employment prospects for the people of the north of Ireland by the recent form of Fascism centering on a new approach—a Bible in one hand and a petrol bomb in the other?

Dr. Boyson: There is no doubt that the hon. Gentleman's point is highly relevant to employment, and even more so to unemployment in Northern Ireland. Anyone considering investing there or expanding his factories would be worried about the political climate. The best thing that could be done for industrial advancement in Northern Ireland would be to achieve a political settlement, especially in relation to the hon. Gentleman's point, so that people can come to the Province knowing that there will be continuity of production.

Mr. Archer: Given the further likely effects on unemployment of the Rothmans' decision, remembering that the Anglo-Irish accord has been operating for nearly six months, and that one of the topics promised for consideration by the conference was the economic and social development of areas that have suffered most severely, what measures have resulted from the accord? If the answer is none, when may the unemployed expect to see such measures?

Dr. Boyson: After the accord, America promised extra help and investment to provide jobs on both sides of the border, especially in difficult areas. Conversations have continued since the accord, but the Americans have not yet reached a final decision. If America agreed to help industrial advance on both sides of the border, it would be of great help.

Enterprise Ulster

Mr. Cash: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if, following the recent review, he will make a statement on the longer-term future of Enterprise Ulster.

Dr. Boyson: The life of Enterprise Ulster is being extended for a period of five years, subject to its achievement of agreed reductions in average job costs. Its

performance will be considered in periodic reviews which are undertaken of the programme of labour market intervention measures for Northern Ireland.

Mr. Cash: Will the improvements in cost-effectiveness expected of Enterprise Ulster have any effect on its ability to undertake major projects in the future?

Dr. Boyson: I am glad to reassure my hon. Friend on that matter. Enterprise Ulster is highly regarded by all communities in Northern Ireland. It is one of the best links that we have to bring people together in Northern Ireland. There is no doubt that a major building programme such as that in the Belfast view—[Interruption.] The view is very nice in Belfast, but I meant to say "zoo". Enclosures and other buildings have been constructed at the zoo. Similarly, the Ulster American folk park has been built. Other building work will be carried out in the future by Enterprise Ulster.

Mr. Hume: In the light of the Minister's remarks about the outstanding record of Enterprise Ulster—a record commented upon favourably by many independent organisations, including the European Commission—does he not believe that, with so much unemployment in Northern Ireland, there is a strong case for expanding the role of Enterprise Ulster?

Dr. Boyson: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I shall contact Enterprise Ulster to see whether the scheme can be expanded. The previous agreement was for a three-year period. In this case the period will be extended to five years, which shows the Government's confidence in the organisation.

Paramilitary Organisations

Ms. Clare Short: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his assessment of the scale of Loyalist paramilitary organisations and the danger they represent.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Nicholas Scott): The Government and the security forces keep under careful review all organisations which are paramilitary in character or associated with the use of violence. The security forces will continue to deal even-handedly under the law with threats to security or public order from all such organisations.

Ms. Short: I am sorry that the Minister has not answered my question, but has merely said that the Government will keep everything under review. Is he aware that Northern Ireland is massively armed—overwhelmingly so in the Loyalist community—with gun licences approved by the British Government? Will the Government undertake to review the many gun licences that are issued and call in some of them?

Mr. Scott: Firearms, shotguns, and, indeed, air rifles are under much stricter control in Northern Ireland than in Great Britain. If the hon. Lady has any particular suggestions for further restrictions in the law I shall obviously look at them, but at the moment we seek to exercise tight control in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Hayes: Will my hon. Friend pay a particular tribute to Sir John Hermon for a courageous and sensible speech last week, when he made it clear that he and his


officers will deal ruthlessly with that tiny minority of officers in the Province who behave in a party political manner?

Mr. Scott: I echo my hon. Friend's remarks, but the grounds for praising Sir John Hermon go much wider than that. He is a splendid leader of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and has been largely responsible for the progress that it has made in recent years.

Mr. Duffy: Does the Minister agree that if Unionist parliamentary representatives do not stand up to their back-room gunmen, the shameful statement of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) outside Belfast city hall on Easter Monday, that democracy has been done to death, will indeed be fulfilled, not, as he went on to say, by Margaret Thatcher in Downing street, but in Northern Ireland by Unionist parliamentary representatives?

Mr. Scott: I regret all such actions and statements that seem to encourage unconstitutional or unlawful action. However, with the prospect of talks between my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State with Unionist leaders, I hope that constitutional action will now be pursued.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Does my hon. Friend agree that to deal effectively with the paramilitary organisations it is essential to have an effective extradition treaty with America? Does he also agree that for America to reject the new extradition treaty would be to deal a body blow to Anglo-American relations and call into question whether that country is seriously interested in suppressing terrorism?

Mr. Scott: The Government are bending every effort to secure the passage of the supplementary treaty on extradition with the United States. I do not believe that either the House or British public opinion would understand a failure to deliver that treaty through the Senate.

Assembly Elections

Mr. Bell: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he proposes to announce the date of the Northern Ireland Assembly elections.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tom King): We want to discuss the future of the Assembly with the Northern Ireland political parties. In reaching a decision on new elections we shall clearly have to consider whether the Assembly will serve a useful purpose.

Mr. Bell: I note the Secretary of State's remarks, but why are salaries continually being drawn by those elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly and those elected to take their seats in that Assembly when no work is being done, not even the scrutinising of legislation by way of Orders in Council for this House? Is that in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland and in the interests of democracy in Northern Ireland?

Mr. King: The frequent complaint that is delivered by some of the absentee Members of this House is that the voice of Northern Ireland—or the Unionist voice—has not been listened to, and that is at the very time that they are failing to discharge their proper functions and to use one of the vehicles that could be most effective in enabling

them to put forward their views. I note what the hon. Gentleman said. There is obviously great force in what he has said, and we are looking at the matter carefully.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is little purpose in holding further elections if the SDLP fight those elections but refuse to attend the Assembly? As they have already achieved the Anglo-Irish treaty, does it not behove them now to assist in the internal government of Northern Ireland? If they refuse to come to the Assembly and to give a promise that they will come to the Assembly, will my right hon. Friend dismiss from his mind any thoughts of calling any further elections?

Mr. King: My hon. Friend will have listened carefully to my original answer. As the Assembly will reach the end of its natural life in mid-October, there is no point in perpetuating that, or even continuing as long as that, if it is failing to fulfil any useful function. Therefore, I agree with my hon. Friend's other comment about the position of the SDLP. I wish that the Unionists would put the SDLP to the test, pick up the remarks of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), challenge him with that, and then see whether it is possible to obtain a new Assembly on a proper basis.

Mr. Flannery: It is not a political reality that the monority community has no faith in the Assembly? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the disucssions that will take place there will be with people who, for endless years, and in the future if they can, will carry on discussions which will keep them permanently in command and leave nothing for the minority community?

Mr. King: That is the gospel of despair that will lead the Province nowhere. The Government are determined to build on common ground between men of good will. If the hon. Gentleman believes that that is impossible, the future is bleak for the Province. I believe that effort must be made. The Government are determined to see whether it can be achieved, but obviously it needs considerable co-operation for it to be possible.

Mr. John Mark Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend accept that some of us were disappointed and disturbed by his first answer? If we are at all serious about devolving powers to Northern Ireland, as the Assembly represents a good spectrum of elected opinion in Northern Ireland, should he not continue his efforts to make it work and make the parties participate in it?

Mr. King: I know that my hon. Friend will be aware of some of the behaviour that is currently taking place within the Assembly and the fact that it is failing to discharge its proper functions. I would certainly agree wholeheartedly if we could achieve a basis on which the proper objectives of the Assembly could be achieved.

Mr. Mallon: Will the Secretary of State confirm that among those who have found it impossible to continue to attend the Assembly are his predecessor, now the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and the alliance party, and that non-attendance is not confined simply to the SDLP?

Mr. King: I am not clear about the hon. Gentleman's first point. My right hon. Friend did attend the Assembly, and Ministers were always ready to attend. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate—his hon. Friend the Member


for Foyle (Mr. Hume) made this point clear as well—that my understanding is that his party is prepared to become involved and would wish to take part in the new Assembly.

Tourism

Mr. Leigh: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the response from the tourist industry to the announcement of the revised accommodation grant scheme in February.

Dr. Boyson: There has been an excellent response from the industry. As at 25 April 1986 there were 176 applications for grant-aid, which include proposals for the upgrading and improvement of 435 hotel bedrooms, and the construction of six new hotels, 21 new guest houses and 21 self-catering developments.

Mr. Leigh: How many jobs will be created by the scheme?

Dr. Boyson: While that building is taking place, I would estimate that about 200 people will find extra employment in the construction industry. When the hotels are completed there will be about 100 more people employed and there will be a spin-off for all the shops in the areas around.

Political Parties (Talks)

Mr. Alton: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action Her Majesty's Government propose to take in the light of correspondence between the Prime Minister and Northern Ireland political parties to hold round table talks with them.

Mr. Tom King: We hope that it will be possible shortly to start exploratory discussions with the two Unionists leaders to see whether a framework for dialogue can be established as suggested by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in her letter of 16 April.

Mr. Alton: I welcome the Secretary of State's answer. Does he not think that, given the willingness of the SDLP and the alliance party of Northern Ireland to enter into discussions without pre-conditions, the time has come to fix a date for those talks to begin?

Mr. King: In view of the position in which the two major Unionist parties find themselves, the first objective is to see whether it is possible for such a framework to be established. Obviously, thereafter, it becomes a question of the involvement of other parties in possible further discussions.

Lignite

Mr. Jackson: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when work under the lignite prospecting licences announced in 1985 is likely to begin.

Dr. Boyson: Legal formalities for the issue of the three licences should be completed shortly, and I understand that the companies hope to start work this month.

Mr. Jackson: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Will he expand on the benefits of lignite development for Northern Ireland?

Dr. Boyson: I hope that there will be benefits from what we are doing. The immediate advantage is that it will cheapen electricity production. That is why we are

considering building a lignite-fired generating station at Crumlin. It should make electricity costs for industry and for homes in Northern Ireland equal to the lowest in this country and in Europe.

Mr. Foulkes: Will the Minister tell the House what effect the development of lignite will have on the supply of Ayrshire coal to power stations in Northern Ireland? In particular, will he confirm that it is planned that the Kilroot power station will continue to burn Ayrshire coal? Will he also tell us why the decision has been made in the short term to burn oil at the Belfast West power station—a very unwise decision—when the supply of Ayrshire coal can be maintained and guaranteed in the long term? Will the Northern Ireland Office hold discussions with the Coal Board about the use of Ayrshire coal in Northern Ireland and the devastating effect it would have on Ayrshire if the supply of coal to Northern Ireland were not continued?

Dr. Boyson: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern about coal sales from Ayrshire to Northern Ireland. The conversion of Kilroot from oil to coal burning is going ahead. The contract has been given to the NEI. We shall have to weigh the question of conversion at other power stations. Much depends upon the price at which coal can be bought. Electricity prices in Northern Ireland have continually been among the highest in the United Kingdom. As the price of oil is falling, and if coal is to be bought for Northern Ireland, we shall have to consider the price at which it can be bought from the Coal Board.

Mr. Hume: Is the Minister aware of the public concern that has been expressed by many residents in the Lough Neagh area about the possibility of damage being done to the environment by lignite mining? As the environmental quality of that area is the highest in Europe, does he not think that a public inquiry is necessary before a licence to mine lignite in the Lough Neagh area is granted?

Dr. Boyson: This is one of those times when I can answer yes. I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume). We have granted a prospecting only licence for two years. There is no guarantee that a mining licence will follow. I have met objectors from East Tyrone in my office in Northern Ireland and I have read all the material that they have published. We have given a straightforward commitment—which has the agreement of my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for the environment in Northern Ireland—that if a mining application is made by any company, a public inquiry will be held.

Mr. Archer: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that the danger envisaged by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) applies to the prospecting itself? As Lough Neagh is listed in the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands as a site of international importance, have the Government given notice of their proposal to grant licences for prospecting, and have they made any assessment of its effect upon wildlife?

Dr. Boyson: Before we were prepared to give the three licences for prospecting, we took advice from wherever it was available and we listened to all the objections. I have been assured that prospecting can go ahead without any damage to the East Tyrone area or to the level of Lock


Neagh. If prospecting had been a threat to the level of Lock Neagh, or to its boundaries, we should have had to think very deeply before granting the licences.

Security

Mr. Yeo: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the security position.

Mr. Proctor: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current security situation.

Mr. King: Since I last answered questions in the House on 27 March, two civilians and two members of the security forces have died in incidents arising from the security situation in the Province. The efforts of the security forces are continuing to yield results. Since the beginning of the year, a total of 264 people have been charged with serious offences and 95 weapons, 10,500 rounds of ammunition and 2,460 lb of explosives have been recovered. The House will wish to note that seven of these weapons and 1,240 lb of explosives have been recovered in the last six days.

Mr. Yeo: I am glad that my right hon. Friend is able to report such progress. Will he take this opportunity to make clear to the House, and above all to those extremists in Northern Ireland who are resorting to violence in their efforts to undermine the Anglo-Irish agreement, that the Government have no intention of being deflected from their purposes in signing that agreement, even if there were to be a regrettable, temporary deterioration in security?

Mr. King: One of the criticisms by some Unionists about the Anglo-Irish agreement that I find least acceptable is the implication that in some way the security forces will lessen their determination to fight terrorism. The figures that I have given to the House and the evidence of the last few days should make clear to everybody our determination to root out terrorism from wherever it comes. Yes, we have had successes in the last few days, but those very successes and the amount of bombs involved show clearly the scale of the threat that we still face.

Mr. Proctor: In order to reduce tension and improve security in Northern Ireland, will my right hon. Friend put intense pressure on the Government of the Republic of Eire to include in their forthcoming referendum on divorce a question about the repeal of articles 1 and 2 of the Republic's constitution? Will my right hon. Friend accept that it is no answer to say that we should not interfere in the internal affairs of the Republic?

Mr. King: I must admit that there is so much talk about articles 2 and 3 that I cannot remember what article 1 is about. I think my hon. Friend means articles 2 and 3. [Interruption.] I shall certainly study his request about article 1. I shall need to refresh my memory on it. I am on record publicly as saying that articles 2 and 3 do not contribute to better relations between the Republic and Northern Ireland. I hope that it will be possible at some future date for changes to be made. I certainly understand why my hon. Friend raises the matter.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: How is the security situation in Northern Ireland helped by the availability of kidnap

insurance? I have here a letter written by Sedgewick UK Ltd., a City of London insurance company, offering kidnap and extortion insurance to a prominent citizen in Northern Ireland. What does the Secretary of State intend to do about that sort of thing? Does he intend to turn a blind eye, or, if he is committed to the restoration of peace in Northern Ireland, does he accept that he has a duty to intervene and prevent the sale of these policies on the open market?

Mr. King: I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would send me a copy of that letter so that I may study it. He knows that it is not an offence in the form of insurance, but it is an offence in Northern Ireland to pay ransom money to any proscribed organisation. This matter goes much wider than the question the hon. Gentleman asks. The whole question of rackets, of extortion, of protection is something on which we should take the strongest possible action.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend accept that Protestant—originated violence in Ulster is relevant to Scotland, where there is a lot of sympathetic support, where caches of weapons have been discovered on numerous occasions and where many prosecutions have taken place? If he does accept that, what consultations is he having with the Secretary of State for Scotland to ensure that the violence does not come across to Scotland?

Mr. King: On these issues I keep in close touch with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. The points made by my hon. Friend are correct, but perhaps he will forgive me if I do not go further into the matter at this stage. I assure him that his point is well taken.

Mr. Soames: In the light of the Anglo-Irish agreement, has my right hon. Friend noticed any improvement in cross-border security?

Mr. King: My hon. Friend will have noted recent events. I do not wish to go into detail about them, but I am satisfied that we are progressively developing closer co-operation on security and that this will undoubtedly be to the benefit of all those who wish to see a reduction in terrorism and its eventual elimination.

Anglo-Irish Agreement

Mr. Latham: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement on the operation to date of the Anglo-Irish agreement.

Mr. Winnick: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on meetings with the Government of the Irish Republic which have occurred arising from the Anglo-Irish agreement.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about progress in implementing the provisions of the Anglo-Irish agreement.

Mr. Tom King: Since the Anglo-Irish agreement came into force on 29 November, the Intergovernmental Conference has met four times and there has been one meeting of the legal sub-group. A joint statement was issued after each meeting, which gives an account of the issues discussed. I have placed these in the Library.

Mr. Latham: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I wish that there was more than one Ulster Unionist here to listen to it. Is my right hon. Friend aware that since we live in 1986, not 1689, many of us hope that more could be done by the Churches to promote intercommunal reconciliation, which is implicit in the Anglo-Irish agreement?

Mr. King: I endorse to the full my hon. Friend's opening comments. It is a tragedy that Unionist Members of the House of Commons are not present to play their part, with the exception, to which I pay tribute, of the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell). I certainly do look to closer co-operation between the Churches. Undoubtedly many Church leaders play an outstanding role in that respect. I should like to encourage that process even further.

Mr. Winnick: Is it not important for the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister to make it absolutely clear that, no matter what sort of intimidation there is in the Province, and what action is taken by the bully boys and the rest, the Anglo-Irish agreement will stand? If that is made clear, perhaps the time will come when the Unionist Members of Parliament will return to their seats here.

Mr. King: The position has been made absolutely clear, by both my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and myself on several occasions. We remain absolutely clear about that.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: Is my right hon Friend aware that many of us who are strong supporters of the Union are also believers in the Anglo-Irish agreement? Does he agree that one of the prospects, if the agreement were to fail, would be an internationalisation of the Northern Ireland problem, which, with the greater interest of perhaps the United States in an adverse way, and the United Nations, would spell disaster for Northern Ireland?

Mr. King: If the agreement were to fail because of intimidation and the sort of violence and obstruction that we have seen in certain quarters, that would be extremely damaging to the Union and would be catastrophic for the image and prospects of Northern Ireland overseas. We face many difficult problems. My hon. Friend the Minister of State referred to the difficult economic news coming out of Northern Ireland today. In that situation, we need maximum co-operation among all the people there. I believe that the Anglo-Irish agreement can contribute to that, if only Unionists are prepared to give it a chance.

Mr. Mallon: Now that there is consensus across the board in Northern Ireland that the use of plastic bullets and of the uncorroborated evidence of supergrasses should be discontinued, would it not, in the Secretary of State's opinion, be advisable for the Anglo-Irish conference to deal with those matters?

Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman's first point will arise shortly through another question on the Order paper, and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State will reply. With regard to the second point, the use of accomplice evidence is under discussion at the moment. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has commented on that practice. I understand the concern about it, but when we face terrorism there are real difficulties in making sure that we deal as effectively and fairly as we can with terrorist crimes.

Mr. Gow: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that no date has been fixed for the next meeting of the Intergovernmental Conference at ministerial level? Will he explain to the House why he cannot say that future meetings of that conference will be held in London rather than Belfast, and why he considers it desirable that the secretariat should be sited in Northern Ireland and not in London?

Mr. King: The answer to the first question is yes, Sir. In respect of the second question, it is not the practice to disclose the location of the conference, for reasons which my hon. Friend may understand. As to the third question, it is my belief that the secretariat is most usefully located in Belfast in order to discharge the work that it does.

Mr. Alton: Will the Secretary of State make it clear to those in Northern Ireland who want to try to break the Anglo-Irish agreement that it is the democratic wish of all the major parties in the House that, however many marches, and however much intimidation or violence there may be over the next few months, we will not tolerate any watering down of the Anglo-Irish agreement?

Mr. King: I have made absolutely clear my support for the Anglo-Irish agreement, but at the same time I have made it absolutely clear that this agreement is not designed to exclude the voice of Unionists from involvement in and contribution to the affairs of Northern Ireland, and that is what I wish to see.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Now that we have the Anglo-Irish agreement, what additional measure does my right hon. Friend propose to protect the members of the RUC, their families and their homes from the attacks that they have suffered? What can he do to stop a number of members of the RUC requesting transfers to return from Northern Ireland to the rest of the United Kingdom?

Mr. King: In respect of the latter point, I have to say that there is no evidence of this happening. I know that the RUC collectively is determined to combat and defeat attempts at intimidation. I know that the whole House will pay tribute to the courage of the RUC in the present difficult situation. I know also that the Chief Constable and the associations involved in representing members of the RUC are determined to stand together and take all necessary measures to defeat intimidation against them.

Plastic and Rubber Bullets

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people have been killed or injured by the use of plastic or rubber bullets in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Scott: Since the introduction of rubber baton rounds in 1970, and plastic baton rounds in 1973, 15 people are believed to have died as a result of their use by the security forces in Northern Ireland. Since 17 March 1981, when records were first collated, 326 have allegedly been injured, all by plastic baton rounds.

Mr. Canavan: Bearing in mind that most of the victims were children or young people, many of them innocent bystanders, who were killed, blinded, paralysed or suffered brain damage, and now especially since the tragic death of Keith White, the use of such lethal weapons has been rightly condemned by many people of the Unionist tradition as well as people of the Republican


tradition, will the Government support my Bill next Wednesday to abolish this barbaric practice for ever from the whole of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Scott: I shall certainly not support any legislation which takes away from the security forces in Northern Ireland a means of protection against the sustained and vicious rioting which they have had to endure over the period of these troubles. It may also be worth mentioning that the European Court of Human Rights has found that the use of baton rounds in Northern Ireland constitutes reasonable force.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Can my hon. Friend say what other form of defence would be available to the security forces if baton rounds were eliminated?

Mr. Scott: The short answer to my hon. Friend's question is that I know of no other means of protecting the security forces against rioting that would be as effective. Water cannon and CS gas have both proved to be ineffective. I know of no alternative to baton rounds at present.

Mr. Parry: My question No. 27 on the Order Paper is similar to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan). I agree with the points that he made about the killing of innocent children and women, particularly the tragic death of Mrs Nora McCabe, and I fully support any demand in the House for the banning of these bullets.

Mr. Scott: I regret every death that takes place in Northern Ireland. It is worth reminding the House that well over 2,000 people have lost their lives in the course of the troubles over the last 16 to 17 years. I think that it is up to those who complain about the use of baton rounds and who wish to have them removed to come forward with an alternative that would be as good and as effective in protecting the security forces against rioting.

Long-term Unemployed Persons

Mr. Neil Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what new measures are being introduced in Northern Ireland for the long-term unemployed.

Dr. Boyson: On 26 March I announced a package of enterprise and employment measures for Northern Ireland, all of which, I hope, will be helpful to the long-term unemployed. These will include individual in-depth counselling interviews, short restart courses, a £20 weekly jobstart allowance and extra job places available in Enterprise Ulster and action for community employment schemes.

Mr. Hamilton: My hon. Friend will agree, I am sure, that everybody who has the economic wellbeing of the Province at heart will welcome this imaginative package of measures. Can my hon. Friend give us any indication of how many job vacancies are filled every month in Northern Ireland?

Dr. Boyson: I believe that about 9,000 people every month get jobs in Northern Ireland—coming from unemployment or from full-time education—and that something equivalent to the total number of long-term unemployed are placed in jobs every four months.

Political Parties (Talks)

Sir John Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had with political leaders in the Province since the signature of the Anglo-Irish agreement.

Mr. Tom King: I have met all the leaders of the major constitutional political parties in Northern Ireland at least once since 15 November—on a number of occasions in company with the Prime Minister. At all those meetings I have made it clear that the Government would welcome discussion about political development in Northern Ireland.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: What are the Government doing to regain the consent of the governed? Since adequate pre-existing machinery for Anglo-Irish cooperation and consultation is present, would not a protracted period of silence from the Intergovernmental Conference be most welcome and helpful?

Mr. King: My hon. Friend will be aware that in answer to an earlier question I said that I hoped there would shortly be discussions to see whether a framework for talks was possible. That is the most positive way forward, to see whether we can at last start talks to help regain the confidence to which my hon. Friend referred.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Tony Banks: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 1 May.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I shall be leaving for Korea and for the economic summit in Tokyo.

Mr. Banks: On this glorious international day of Labour, will the Prime Minister find time to study the terms of the petition presented at No. 10 Downing street last Saturday by Labour council candidates from the London borough of Newham? The petition showed that this year £5·5 million of rate support grant has been taken from Newham, making a total loss of £74 million since 1980, plus £11 million for the cost of the abolition of the Greater London council. Newham is the second most deprived local authority area in England, so why do the Government refuse to give us partnership status? When the Prime Minister returns from. Tokyo, will she accept an invitation from me to come to Newham and see the effect of Government policies on the real East Enders of London?

The Prime Minister: London as a whole will benefit enormously from the abolition of the GLC.

Mr. Latham: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 1 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Latham: At the Tokyo summit, will my right hon. Friend press for the fullest possible co-operation and for the pooling of all scientific knowledge between East and


West which will help to prevent any further disaster, such as that at the Russian nuclear reactor? Will she say that the only way to build confidence in the verification of nuclear weapons disarmament is if we deal effectively with civil catastrophes?

The Prime Minister: I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. These matters go way beyond the borders of any country, and must be dealt with on a global scale. I hope that all the details of that terrible accident at Chernobyl will be reported to the International Atomic Energy Agency so that we may all profit from it, and that inspectors will be able to go in to deduce precisely what happened. I also agree with my hon. Friend's deduction on the other point. Knowing something of what has happened in the Soviet Union and how difficult it is to get facts and assessments, it should make us wary in any arms control negotiations that we must be absolutely meticulous to get specific, practical and strict verification of any agreement.

Mr. Kinnock: Now that the prison officers have suspended their industrial action, thereby giving further evidence of their good will and sense of responsibility, why are the Government adding stubbornness to their original folly by refusing to engage in talks with them?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman knows that after questions there will be a statement on this matter. I am pleased that the prison officers have called off their action. Many of us were appalled that they ever took it, and I think that it has been salutary for them. I should like to thank the governors who stood at their posts, the police officers who also stood at their posts, and the police, who backed up the whole service.

Mr. Kinnock: Is the Prime Minister aware that the governors have strong sympathy with the conditions and difficulties which the prison officers face daily, and that the rise in the number of prisoners vastly exceeds the rise in the number of officers—[Interruption.] Yes. The ratio is 5,000:2,500. I know the figures. Is the Prime Minister aware that, unless the Government show a more rational attitude, what we have seen thus far, as a consequence of industrial action, will in any event come about simply because of the pressures in the prisons?

The Prime Minister: May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman what the Government have done to increase the facilities of the prison service. We implemented the report of the May committee on the prison service, which was established by a Labour Home Secretary. We ended the Labour Government's neglect of prison buildings by instituting the largest prison building programme in history. Spending on prison buildings is up by 400 per cent. We have increased spending on the prison service by 85 per cent. in real terms. On the specific point that the right hon. Gentleman made, and made wrongly, we have increased the number of prison officers by 3,000—that is 18 per cent.—at a time when the number of prisoners has gone up by 12 per cent.

Mr. Kinnock: Following that litany, can the Prime Minister tell me why Mr. Sidney Powell, the secretary of the governors' organisation, should say that the 12 per cent. population increase mentioned by the Prime Minister meant an additional 5,000 prisoners, and that the 18 per cent. increase in staff was about 2,500 officers? Will the Prime Minister come clean at least on this?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman confirms my assertion that the ratio of prison officers to prisoners has greatly improved.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: At the Tokyo summit, will my right hon. Friend impress upon Japan the importance of her undertaking and maintaining a greater share of responsibility towards the Third world than she does at present?

The Prime Minister: Yes, but we shall also be pressing upon Japan the fact that when she competes for contracts in the Third world she must also compete on a fair basis, and on a fair basis for credit as well.

Dr. Owen: Will the Prime Minister ask Sir Frank Layfield, who is currently writing his report on the Sizewell inquiry, to take full account of the disaster that has occurred in the Soviet Union? We have waited ma by years for this inquiry, and it would be very helpful for making final decisions if Sir Frank Layfield was able to take as much evidence as possible from the Soviet Union.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the report of an inquiry is the report of the conclusions from the evidence given at the inquiry, and it cannot go further and include matters which have arisen since the inquiry. He will be the first to be aware that the reactor in the Soviet Union is totally different from any kind of reactor here. He will also be aware that the record of safety in design, operation, maintenance and inspection in this country is second to none. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will think it right to support the furtherance of such an excellent nuclear industry.

Mr. Viggers: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we are proud of the fact that she will be this country's representative at the Tokyo summit? Does she agree that the greatest single boost to world trade would be a reduction of trade barriers and a promotion of genuine free trade throughout the world? Does my right hon. Friend further agree that the reduction in oil prices provides a good background for such a new initiative, and will she propose such an initiative in Tokyo?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that we need to reduce trade barriers. Between a third and a half of world trade is subject to some form of protection. For some time many of us have felt that it is time we had a new GATT round so that we can jointly get rid of or reduce some of the barriers. This is meeting with a good deal of hostility in some quarters, but we shall nevertheless continue to persevere with that line, both at the Tokyo summit and beyond.

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Pavitt: Is the Prime Minister not concerned and distressed by the fact that, as a result of her policies, we now have a record number of over 100,000 homeless people? Last year, an extra twist in the spiral meant a further 13 per cent. In the Conservative-controlled London borough of Brent my ratepayers are now paying £5,400 a day, week in, week out, for bed and breakfast and temporary accommodation, and taxpayers are paying a further £5,400 through the DHSS. Will the Prime Minister follow the good example set by one of her previous


Ministers, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), and spend three hours with me looking at the tragic families living in sleazy conditions so she can see for herself what is happening to family life in my area?

The Prime Minister: May I point out to the hon. Gentleman that there are 100,000 empty council houses in England and Wales, and that more than 30,000 of them are in London? A considerable number of these have been empty for over a year. It might be a good idea if some of them were brought back into use. Then there would then be less need for bed-and-breakfast accommodation.

Mr. David Atkinson: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 1 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Atkinson: Has my right hon. Friend seen yesterday's ruling by the European Court of Justice against the price fixing of European air fares? Does that not at last pave the way for competition to reduce the level of fares to the level long enjoyed in the United States of America? Will the Government hold discussions with Lord King about the lead that British Airways should set?

The Prime Minister: We were very pleased with the decision of the European Court of Justice yesterday. It confirmed the view that we have held for a long time, which is that competition also applies to air fares. The people of this country owe a debt of gratitude to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport for his strenuous efforts, which have already reduced air fares. It is further backing of our belief in competition instead of rigging the market.

Mrs. Dunwoody: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 1 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mrs. Dunwoody: As the amendment on the Order Paper concerning carers, which stands in the Prime Minister's name today, is almost identical to that tabled by the Opposition, would she be kind enough to tell us why it omits only two points? I refer to cash to support the carers and any mention of invalid care allowance.

The Prime Minister: I would be glad to place this Government's record on caring beside that of the Labour Government at any time, and I shall be especially glad to do so when the time comes.

Sir Bernard Braine: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, despite the lack of information from the Soviet Union about the disaster that has seriously affected its nearest neighbours, the Poles at least are taking all sorts of measures to protect their children'? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that if any request for help with medicaments and special foods comes from that country, we will not hesitate to give it urgently and without any conditions?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising that point. If any requests come we shall, of course, look at them with the greatest sympathy and do our level best to get help there as soon as possible. We have offered the Soviet Union help on all technical aspects connected with the accident, but so far it has not seen fit to take it up.

Mr. Rogers: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 1 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Rogers: On 14 April the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy said that nuclear energy was the safest, cleanest and cheapest form of electricity generation. Which of those criteria does the Prime Minister believe to be the most important?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows—he must be struggling very hard for a question—all those criteria are very important. I hope that he is proud of the record of our nuclear industry and of those who operate it.

Mr. Onslow: When my right hon. Friend is invited to draw comparisons between Western and Soviet technology, will she bear in mind that the fact that the Russians failed to create their own Concordski does not mean that Concorde is unsafe?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend's question demonstrates most neatly the difference of approach between the two countries. We place great stress on the need for safety in the latest technology.

Mr. Winnick: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 1 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Winnick: Can the Prime Minister give any explanation of why 1986 has been such a wretched year for her? I am afraid that there is far worse to come.

The Prime Minister: I am still smiling and looking forward to my seventh anniversary, which will be about a halfway house.

Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that what is lacking with civil nuclear power installations is an internationally accepted safety standard? Will she seek to encourage such a standard and its application in Russia, Great Britain and everywhere else in the world?

The Prime Minister: The accident in the Soviet Union has stressed that safety must be an international matter. We shall pursue this vigorously through the appropriate agency.

Mr. Lofthouse: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 1 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Lofthouse: Is the Prime Minister satisfied that a nuclear accident similar to that which occurred in the Soviet Union could not occur in this country? If not, will she assure the House that the Government will discontinue their interest in pressurised water reactors?

The Prime Minister: No, I can give no such assurance. I know that the hon. Gentleman has a specific interest in coal, but there are other people who work in the electricity and the nuclear industry, and who work very effectively. The industry was started in this country. It was one of our own technologies, and I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman, too, could be proud of its safety record and the way we have handled our nuclear industry, in terms of safety and economy.

Business of the House

Mr. Neil Kinnock: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
TUESDAY 6 MAY—Until Seven o'clock, there will be a debate on the situation in Her Majesty's prisons on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. Consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill.
WEDNESDAY 7 MAY—Consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill.
Remaining stages of the British Shipbuilders (Borrowing Powers) Bill.
THURSDAY 8 MAY—There will be a debate on crime prevention on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 9 MAY—Private Members' Bills
MONDAY 12 MAY—Until Seven o'clock, Private Members' motions.
Motion on the Hong Kong (British Nationality) Order.

Mr. Kinnock: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Will he ensure that the House is kept fully informed of any further details which the Government obtain about the consequences of the Chernobyl disaster? I am sure that he agrees that it would be appropriate to have a debate in the near future on the issues raised and highlighted by this most serious incident.
I thank the Leader of the House for responding constructively to our representations for an early debate on the Government's dispute with the prison officers. In the light of the emergency debate next Tuesday, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to ensure that there will be discussion about the manner in which the orders for the Finance Bill are taken? When is the defence White Paper likely to published? Will the right hon. Gentleman provide time for the debate on foreign affairs which I have requested on several occasions?
I welcome next week's debate on crime prevention and express the hope that the Home Secretary will come forward in that debate with proposals for aiding elderly and poorer people with the cost of making their homes more secure and, similarly, for supporting local authorities which wish to make additional provision for crime prevention in their streets and housing estates.
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman and all hon. Members would wish to pay tribute to Miss Roseanne O'Reilly, who retires today after working for almost 40 years in the Library. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, for a long time she has been a most devoted servant of the House and has given Members of every party the most valued service in their requests for information.

Mr. Biffen: If I answer the questions in reverse order, I shall have the opportunity to open with my congratulations to Miss O'Reilly on her retirement and to echo what I am sure is the feeling throughout the House that she should have a most happy retirement, knowing that she will take with her the good wishes and appreciation of hon. Members.
As to next Thursday's debate on crime prevention, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department is in his place and will have heard the

comments on the matters that may be canvassed during that debate. I accept that we need to turn to foreign affairs for a debate. I hope that that matter will be considered through the usual channels in the reasonably near future.
I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence intends to publish the defence White Paper on 12 May.
Of course, I understand that the rearrangement, at late notice, of the business for the Committee stage of the Finance Bill puts a question mark over the order that had been chosen. It would be appropriate if that matter were considered through the usual channels.
I take note of what the right hon. Gentleman said about the importance of keeping the House informed of any consequences of the nuclear power station disaster in the Soviet Union. That is what we shall do.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the points put to him last week by the Leader of the Opposition about trying to attract American tourists to Britain and their anxieties about terrorist attacks. Is my right hon. Friend aware that, apparently, some people have been told by the State Department that they should not travel to Britain? Is not that a disgraceful line for that department to take? Exactly what have the Government done to impress upon the American Administration the safety of the Americans who come to this country? If that has not been done, why not?
On the debate on Monday week on the Hong Kong (British Nationality) Order, will my right hon. Friend say why we had such an unsatisfactory reply last week by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary? Is my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House aware that many of us are unhappy about the way in which the Indian minority are being treated in Hong Kong and that some of us are not prepared to support the Government on that issue unless changes are made?

Mr. Biffen: I simply do not accept that the reply which my hon. Friend found unsatisfactory was necessarily unsatisfactory to many of my other hon. Friends. That matter can be argued in substance when the motion is considered on Monday 12 May.
I have no knowledge about the United States State Department advising Americans not to visit this country. Of course, I shall refer the matter to my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, because I agree with my hon. Friend that it would be most offensive if such assertions were made. My hon. Friend will have his opportunity on Wednesday, when my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary will be taking questions, to make his points directly to my right hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. David Alton: Following the assurances that the right hon. Gentleman has already given, will he confirm that if there are any signs that the students who return from Minsk are adversely affected by radiation an immediate statement will be made to the House? Why were not the orders for the Nuclear Industry Radioactive Waste Executive site laid during April? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that there will be a full debate on the future of the nuclear industry in Britain?

Mr. Biffen: On the question about students returning from the Soviet Union, clearly my statement was a general one. The specific instances will be considered in the context of what I have said.
On the question of NIREX, it might be helpful if the hon. Gentleman recollected that I was pressed on that point last week by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown). I have written to my hon. Friend saying that it will be the Government's intention to have a general debate on the policy of nuclear waste disposal. After that, the special development order will be laid before the House. If the order is prayed against, there will be a separate debate on that.

Mr. Tony Marlow: As my right hon. Friend is always totally frank with the House and has a great understanding of European issues, will he confirm that our abatement is sacrosanct against the European budget and was agreed at Fountainebleau and that there is no requirement for the House to agree to a supplementary budget to ensure that we get it?

Mr. Biffen: I agree that I have a degree of innocence, but I hope that it is not carried to the extent suggested by my hon. Friend. Of course, I shall look at my hon. Friend's second point. I should prefer to make a considered judgment.

Mr. Leo Abse: I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the early-day motion which has already been signed by more than 90 hon. Members on both sides of the House and which relates to family courts.
[That this House welcomes the establishment of the Family Courts Campaign to promote the early implementation of family courts, following the support for family courts recently expressed by the Law Society, the Association of County Councils, the Association of Directors of Social Services and many other bodies; welcomes the recommendations of the report of the Matrimonial Causes Procedure Committee, particularly those relating to the establishment of conciliation in matrimonial proceedings; notes with concern that the report by the Law Commission on Family Law, Illegitimacy, has yet to be implemented; further notes that the joint study set up in July 1984 by the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for the Home Department to reexamine the idea of a unified family court, and study the resources implications in terms of finance, manpower and accommodation is due to be published shortly; regrets that this study has been so long delayed; and urges the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for the Home Department to come forward with proposals for legislation at the earliest opportunity, following the publication of their report and their subsequent consultation on the most appropriate model for implementation.]
As it is expected that next week the Lord Chancellor will publish a report on family courts, may we have an assurance that we shall have a debate on the report so that the House can decide what its options are and so that the issue of family courts is not consigned as has happened to other reports, to the graveyard of Whitehall social legislation?

Mr. Biffen: I notice the anxiety of the hon. Gentleman. He will recollect that this matter was raised during business questions last week. I do not think that I can go beyond the answer that I gave then, but I take note of the hon. Gentleman's further comments.

Mr. David Mudd: Will my right hon. Friend consider at a very early date instigating a debate on regional development grants in the light of the suggestion in today's edition of the Western Morning News that at the very least the Department of Trade and Industry has sought deliberately to misinterpret European Community policy in this matter; alternatively, has sought to use its presumed interpretation to swing support from the very needy areas such as Devon and Cornwall to the west midlands; or has actually used the new policy to cut back on aid to areas that most need it? I ask my right hon. Friend to consider this as a matter of urgency since one Cornish tin mine may well close tomorrow and the other four within three months from today.

Mr. Biffen: I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand at once that I cannot accept the interpretation of either the judgment or motive of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry contained in that important west country newspaper, but I understand the great significance of the issue, particularly in view of the current state of the tin industry, and I will draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: The Leader of the House will recall that on previous occasions I have asked for a debate on the standardisation and implementation of building regulations, particularly with respect to the use of glass in buildings. As these new regulations have not yet been published, and as it seems that we shall see no sign of them in the near future, perhaps the Leader of the House will find time for a debate in the House in order to bring some pressure to bear or, the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Mr. Biffen: The most sensible immediate course would be for me to draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, and this I will do.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Since the Channel Tunnel Bill seems to have won the banana skin of the week trophy for violating the Standing Orders of the House, can my right hon. Friend shed any light on the Government's plans for this marooned item of legislation? In particular, can he indicate whether it is really wise to ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry or his parliamentary counsel to parade in front of the Standing Orders Committee, asking for a dispensation for the unfortunate errors that have occurred? Would it not be much wiser simply to give the petitioners of Kent adequate time within the original limits that should have been advertised, and an opportunity to present their submissions to the Select Committee?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend has had an entertaining week, but I do not think that there has been quite as much damage as he implies. The most helpful information that I can give is that we hope to arrange for the Second Reading of the Bill shortly.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: In view of the disastrous disposal of the George Brown collection from Newcastle university, will the right hon. Gentleman give us a chance to debate this matter, the disposal of objects from public and semi-public institutions, before more damage is done? Does he realise that in such a debate we could discuss the impending tragedy of the dispersal of the archive at Herstmonceux castle?

Mr. Biffen: What I can best do immediately is to refer these problems to my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts. Candidly, I see little prospect of a debate in Government time in the near future.

Mr. Michael Colvin: Has my right hon. Friend taken on board the request for an early debate on the dangers resulting from nuclear disasters? If not, Her Majesty's Government will have to bring forward an alternative plan for preventing fallout from descending on those areas of the country, such as nuclear-free zones, that lack the civil defence resources for dealing with such a contingency.

Mr. Biffen: Many of these considerations, which derive from the unhappy incident in the Soviet Union, could well be encompassed in the foreign affairs debate that we will be having in the reasonably near future.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I urge the Leader of the House to let the House have an early debate on the use of nuclear power, following the Soviet disaster. Will he bear in mind that, when we have the debate, it will be better if we do not have it on the Adjournment so that we can table an amendment on the lines of the policy statement that was carried by the Labour party conference calling for the phasing out of nuclear power? With a little luck, we might be able to get the Liberals to vote with us. I am not sure about the hang gliding party down the Gangway because when the wind blows that way, they might blow the other way.

Mr. Biffen: The experience of common voting between the hon. Gentleman's party and the other two parties of the Left will be a developing practice over the next few months.
As to the debate on nuclear power, there are aspects about the Soviet tragedy that can be related to the international spectrum, and so debated when we have the foreign affairs debate.
As to the wider issue, the House will shortly have a chance to debate the Government's response to the findings about nuclear waste disposal from the Select Committee on the Environment.

Mr. John Stokes: Has my right hon. Friend noted from his postbag that the few complaints that Conservative Members have been receiving lately on such things as the US action in Libya, nuclear power, or even such matters as student grants, all seem to come from the more affluent section of society and not from the mass of the people? Could not we discuss this interesting phenomenon?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend is quite right to remind us of the limitations of postbag politics, and I shall judge the Shops Bill in that context.

Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: Will the Leader of the House arrange an early debate on the contract that was signed between Vickers and the Ministry of Defence yesterday for the production of Trident submarines? It appears from what has been said that the Estimates will not be published until 12 May and that there is likely to be some delay thereafter. Can the right hon. Gentleman arrange for an early debate on a contract that is regarded as unique and by some of us as fettering a future Labour Government because of the terms of compensation, and on which we do not have even the prospect of scrutiny in the Library? Will he arrange at least

that the contract is placed in the Library, and for an early debate on what is a constitutional outrage in the form of a contract?

Mr. Biffen: I shall look into the hon. Gentleman's request about the contract. As to the more general point, I shall take account of what he said, and I realise that for many Labour Members this is a matter of special significance to their future defence attitude. I cannot hold out much hope of a debate before the debate that we shall have on the defence White Paper.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate next week about the meeting of the Finance Ministers in the EEC last Tuesday so as to enable my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to explain why he agreed first to a substantial supplementary budget, and secondly to having the figures massaged by moving much extra expenditure from 1986 into 1987?

Mr. Biffen: I cannot accept the situation in quite the way that my hon. Friend suggests. If I were now to disturb the business that I have arranged for the House next week, I should not be universally popular. My hon. Friend is an experienced parliamentarian, and will know that there are many opportunities outside Government time to make such points.

Mr. Ronald Boyes: Does the Leader of the House recall that in a recent answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) he said that a Committee would be set up to review the opposed private Bill procedure? How far has he got on that? Will he give the House an assurance that no further progress will be made on the Channel tunnel until after the review is completed, which will allow for a more open and democratic decision-making process on that project?

Mr. Biffen: The establishment of that Committee is under consideration. I make it clear that its establishment will not result in our aborting legislation that is already in process.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: As we shall have a holiday on Monday and it is election day on Thursday, does my right hon. Friend feel inclined to act like the good headmaster that he is and allow us to have another two days off on Tuesday and Wednesday so that Opposition and Government Front-Bench Members can go out and discover what the people are thinking?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend should not offer that temptation. Nor should he give that general impression, as this is his last Parliament. He should be lingering here and savouring everything that it embodies, instead of which he is acting as though he had already retired.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is the Leader of the House aware that, on Friday 11 April, a British citizen—an executive of the Bell Shipping Lines, which is a British company—was found at Dublin airport to have £300,000 in his suitcase? In so far as there is a connection between the transfer of that money and the operations of Control Risks Ltd., a London company which specialises in kidnap insurance matters, should there not be a full inquiry into the matter, and can that inquiry report to Parliament?

Mr. Biffen: I shall certainly look into the matter and refer it to whichever of my right hon. Friends is most relevant to deal with it.

Mr. Michael Latham: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the way in which the House discusses the grave events that occur day after day in Northern Ireland since, with one shining exception, the Ulster Unionists will not come to the Chamber? Since the Assembly is not working, is it not incumbent on the House to discuss the matters properly?

Mr. Biffen: The House continues to discuss the Province properly. It continues, traditionally, with Northern Ireland Question Time and it continues to deal with Northern Ireland orders as necessary. Whether hon. Members from the Province participate in our debates is essentially a judgment that they make having regard to their electorate.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that, for two years, by means of petitions, early-day motions and questions, and by badgering him at business question time, I have tried to keep open the railway station serving Wembley stadium? May I thank and congratulate him, since last week he assured me that he would speak with great force to the Secretary of State for Transport, and yesterday British Rail decided that it would give in and not close the station at Marylebone.

Mr. Biffen: I do not deserve one shred of the hon. Gentleman's praise, but I happily accept it.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the request from hon. Members on both sides of the House for an early debate on the implications of the Chernobyl disaster? Will he give us an opportunity to consider the grotesque double standards of the anti-nuclear protesters who, when they wanted to demonstrate, chose as the first port of call not the Soviet embassy but the Department of Energy? Will he give the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) the opportunity to explain why he was with the protesters?

Mr. Biffen: As I have said, such a debate would be very educative, not least because it would enable us to have some insight into the motives of those who protest against civilian nuclear power. However, the House will have the opportunity in the near future to discuss nuclear power in respect of the Soviet disaster as well as our domestic nuclear programme. I hesitate to make any commitment beyond that.

Mr. Robert Parry: Will the Leader of the House ask the Prime Minister when she returns from her visit to the far east if she will make a statement to the House on democracy and human rights in South Korea and about the peaceful unification of the peninsula, which is official Government policy?

Mr. Biffen: It is the custom of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to make statements to the House following meetings such as the one in prospect. I shall draw to her attention the suggestion that she might cover those topics, among many others.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: May I invite my right hon. Friend to reconsider his advice that questions on the Russian disaster can be subsumed in a possible debate on foreign affairs? If that happened, there would be

insufficient time for the House to consider our relationship with the United States, our relationship with Europe, the problems in the middle east and southern Africa, our relationship with the Association of the South East Asian Nations and human rights on an international basis, and the debate on foreign affairs would become a mockery. I ask my right hon. Friend to consider seriously having a separate debate soon on the disaster in the Soviet Union.

Mr. Biffen: My hon. and learned Friend makes a perfectly fair point, but, of course, it is a point that is frequently made about foreign affairs debates which, by virtue of their diversity, have to encompass a number of highly important topics. As I say, it is a matter for consideration through the usual channels and I do not want to raise expectations which I cannot fulfil.

Mr. James Callaghan: The Leader of the House invites those of us who are retiring to linger and savour the atmosphere. Is he aware that the smell reaching most of us is that of the Government's decay?

Mr. Biffen: Well, it all depends where one sits.

Mr. John Watt: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a short debate on our policy towards bank holidays? In view of the Labour party's recent attempt to hide the red flag under the cloak of its new grey image, would it not be timely for the House to have the chance to consider scrapping the May bank holiday, which is an alien celebration of Marxist Socialism, and putting bank holidays on our national saints' days which can be days of patriotism?

Mr. Biffen: I just have a feeling that that is the kind of topic which, suggested tentatively and lightheartedly ahead of an election, causes more irritation than enough. I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend is urging upon me, but I am not aware of any great public desire to see further change.

Mr. Greville Janner: Has the attention of the Leader of the House been drawn to the allegations in The Guardian this week concerning the deaths of two British prisoners of war—a Mr. Fishwick, who died in a concentration camp, and a Sergeant John Dryden, who was handed over to the Germans and disappeared—and, in particular, the allegation that Dr. Kurt Waldheim was involved in those deaths? As it has proved impossible to obtain any information from the Government on that matter, will he be good enough to inquire from his colleagues whom one should ask about it; and, if no answer is forthcoming, may we have a statement or a debate on the matter?

Mr. Biffen: I see no particular profit in having a debate or statement on that topic or getting involved in the controversies that now rage between the World Jewish Congress and the supporters of Dr. Waldheim, but I shall consider the point that the hon. and learned Gentleman has made.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the staggering growth in driving licence abuse and that in 1984–85, 141,701 people were convicted of driving licence fraud? As more than 30 million driving licences are now in existence, none with photographs, will my right hon. Friend find time for the House to debate the urgent need to stop people who have


been banned, are under age, or who do not even have the right to drive, from driving?—[Interruption.] This is a serious matter.

Mr. Biffen: Road accidents are undoubtedly a subject of the utmost seriousness, but I should have thought that at the moment the level of general controversy is at such a pitch that I would not willingly wish to add to it with the proposition of putting photographs on driving licences because that would lead to considerable public debate and acrimony. However, my hon. Friend has made a serious point, and I shall take it up with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

Mr. William Cash: In view of the importance to our commercial success of matters relating to copyright and intellectual property, will my right hon. Friend consider arranging a debate on the White Paper on that matter?

Mr. Biffen: That is one of the many factors that I have to take into account when considering a forward programme. It is a most important topic. I only regret that I cannot offer a debate in the near future.

Prison Officers (Dispute)

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): As I undertook in the House last night, I will, with permission, make a further statement on the situation in the prisons.
I reported to the House last night on events at Lewes and Northeye prisons. Disruption continued there during the night, but the situation has now been brought under control, though at both establishments, and particularly at Northeye near Bexhill, there has been extensive damage to buildings. Police intervention was necessary at Bristol to regain control of one wing of the prison, and at Erlestoke youth custody centre, near Devizes, some 40 trainees made a mass breakout and some 16 are still at large. The other serious incident was at Wymott, near Chorley, where there was a major disturbance but where staff gradually were able to regain control. A number of lesser incidents took place at 12 other prison establishments.
The situation in all establishments has now been brought back under control. I want to take this opportunity, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House did a few moments ago, to pay tribute to hard-pressed prison governors, those prison staff who remained at their posts, and the members of the police and fire services who have helped to restore the situation.
There will need to be an inquiry into these events. Its form and scope will have to be compatible with any police investigation into alleged offences, and I will keep the House informed.
I have taken immediate steps to try to ensure that, now that order has been restored, it can continue to be preserved. Prison governors are in touch with their local chief officers of police about the situation in their establishments. After consultation with me the acting president of the Association of Chief Police Officers has opened the national information centre at New Scotland Yard to collate and disseminate information relating to the police involvement in the prisons dispute. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has ordered preparations in case military camps are needed to house prisoners as a result of the destruction of prison accommodation. Arrangements have been made to ensure a co-ordinated response by all Government Departments to the present difficult situation.
Although some of the violent action by prisoners may have been imitative, there is little doubt that the occasion for it was the overtime ban instituted by the national executive committee of the Prison Officers Association as part of its dispute about manning levels with the Prison Department. This both increased the prospect of trouble in the prisons and reduced the resources available to deal with it. I believe that not only the public but many members of the prison service, including many members of the Prison Officers Association, will have been appalled by the events of the last 24 hours.
I therefore welcome the decision of the national executive committee of the POA to suspend its industrial action to allow talks at the Home Office to take place. The POA asks in its statement for a reciprocal gesture, asking us to allow staff to work normally and to lift threats of suspension. There should be no difficulty about that. Staff temporarily relieved from duty, that is to say suspended, can lift their own suspension by agreeing to work


normally. We cannot start substantive negotiations until the threat of industrial action has been removed. But I have invited the NEC to discussions at the Department with a view to the simultaneous calling off of the industrial action and the institution of discussions about the agenda for the future which I set out in my letter of 22 April to the POA general secretary, Mr. Evans.
The House will recall that this agenda involved: a rapid settlement of this year's pay claim, including the outstanding question of a reduction in the working week for prison officers; the immediate payment of tax compensation on housing allowance for 1985–86; and bringing forward as fast as possible—this is the crucial point—work on new shift systems and pay arrangements for detailed discussion with the POA, with a view to the new arrangements being in place by April 1987.
I very much hope that the national executive committee will respond positively and constructively to this package and that the talks I have set in hand will find a way through present difficulties. I shall do everything I can to ensure that the control which has been regained in our prisons is maintained and that a constructive way forward is found to settle this destructive dispute.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: The whole country has been appalled at the savagery of last night's events, their widespread nature and the anarchy which has prevailed. We deplore and condemn the violence and would like more information as soon as it is available about the report of two deaths at Northeye.
What we need and what the nation demands is an early resolution to this dispute. It is here that, especially after last night's events, which could and should have been foreseen by him, the Home Secretary has an inescapable responsibility. The Prison Officers Association has taken a constructive and statesmanlike step by suspending industrial action. Therefore, it is now for the Home Secretary to respond by facilitating discussions that could end the dispute. The right hon. Gentleman may not be aware that the national executive of the Prison Officers Association is not free unilaterally to abandon industrial action. A ballot was held under its own constitution, as well as under the Government's employment legislation, and a ballot is required for abandoning industrial action.
Following the last dispute in the prisons in 1980–81, when industrial action was taken, the court ruled that for industrial action to be abandoned the consent of the membership of the Prison Officers Association must be obtained in a similar way to which it was obtained when the action started. That was a ruling in the High Court by Lord Justice Browne-Wilkinson. Therefore, only the membership of the POA can remove that mandate for industrial action. For the membership to be able to do that, it needs to have a package from the Home Secretary placed before it for consideration.
I strongly urge the Home Secretary to instruct his officials immediately to get in touch with the NEC of the Prison Officers Association so that they can discuss the basis for a possible agenda for talks. Such a step might help to ease the way for the process that will end the dispute. I hope that the Home Secretary will take such constructive action urgently because a renewal of last night's arson and anarchy is too grim for anyone to contemplate.

Mr. Hurd: I welcome the change in the tone of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks since last night. He asked

me a specific and serious question about reports of deaths at Northeye. He is perfectly correct: there were such reports. They came from a prisoner coming out. Since the authorities regained control at Northeye, they have made two thorough searches of the premises and have not been able to find anything to substantiate those reports. Obviously if there is any change it will have to be made known at once.
As I understand it, the right hon. Gentleman is completely accurate in the account he has just given of the requirements, not of the law of the land or the statute, but of the rules of the Prison Officers Association. That is a matter which can perfectly well be discussed in the procedural talks I have suggested.
I hope that the House and the right hon. Gentleman will understand why, in my view, it is not possible to start substantive negotiations until the threat of industrial action has been removed. On Monday I found myself in procedural discussions with the POA and there was talk of suspending action then. However, particularly dangerous action had got under way at Gloucester at that time and I have since learned that it was instigated by the POA. Therefore, at that time there was a strong feeling, which I shared, that one cannot have substantial negotiations under those conditions. That is why I have made the suggestion, which I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will recognise as having merit, of going for a simultaneous understanding for the removal of industrial action—taking account of his comments about the rules—and agreement on methods to start discussions of the agenda which I set out to Mr. Evans in my letter of 22 April.

Mr. Leon Brittan: Will my right hon. Friend agree that, in view of the vastly increased resources spent on the prison service by the Government, it is entirely reasonable to ensure that those resources are properly managed and not wasted on excessive overtime or unreasonable and unjustifiable working practices? Therefore, does my right hon. Friend agree that the POA is perfectly entitled to expect to take part in discussions on how that objective should be achieved and that the procedure my right hon. Friend has suggested is a proper way to do that?
Does my right hon. Friend also agree that, after what happened last night, the POA will forfeit the support of those most sympathetic to it unless the threat of industrial action is not just suspended but clearly withdrawn?

Mr. Hurd: I am most grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. He has set out the position very succinctly, and I agree with all the points that he has made.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Clearly, all right hon. and hon. Members wish the prospects for the talks well. Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that he was clearly right to stand firm on the position that it must be the prison governors, subject to the rules of the Home Office, endorsed by this House, and not the Prison Officers Association, who are responsible for running the prisons? However, will he also bear in mind that when he complains about the previous tone of comments from the Opposition and elsewhere there is one person, above all, who is responsible for the politicisation of the law and order issue, and that is the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the chairman of the Conservative party? If the right hon. Gentleman cannot restrain his raucous colleague, he must expect the interchange to be both ways.

Mr. Hurd: I do not read my right hon. Friend's remarks in that way at all. My right hon. Friend is drawing attention to the results, in his view, of some of the social legislation that was introduced by the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins). I quite understand that the right hon. Gentleman may be sensitive about that, but I do not think that it has anything to do with this issue.

Sir Edward Gardner: Will my right hon. Friend agree that this quite disastrous dispute has been brought about at a time when record sums of money have been spent by the Government on the prison service, that since 1979 the budget for the prison service has risen by 85 per cent., and that this enormous increase in money spent has been accompanied by an increase of 18 per cent. in the number of prison officers?

Mr. Hurd: Yes, indeed, and that at a time when the prison population has risen by 12 per cent. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) was badly needed by the Leader of the Opposition a few minutes ago when the Leader of the Opposition produced, unwittingly, figures that showed that the ratio of staff to prison population had substantially improved during the lifetime of this Government.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Will the Home Secretary also agree that, if he were to cast his eyes back to the reply that he gave to me on Monday of this week with regard to the prison population, he would find that the number of persons on short-term sentences who have been paroled has risen by about 400 per cent.? Prison numbers as a whole have risen disastrously over the last few years, which in effect means that those being detained in prison are the longer serving prisoners for whom there is no hope of parole in many cases, as his predecessor indicated, in the long term. Therefore, will the Home Secretary agree that this has increased the pressures on the officers who have to guard these prisoners and look after their welfare? As a result of the absence of welfare services and recreational and other facilities, the POA has a perfectly credible case in seeking an increase in the number of prison officers in order to provide adequate and proper care for long-term prisoners that has been deliberately damaged by the policies of this Government.

Mr. Hurd: The balance of the prison population changes as we implement what seems to me to be the very sensible policy of keeping in prison longer those who have received particularly severe sentences for particularly heinous crimes. However, as the hon. Gentleman will know and as the figures show, the aim of our spending programme, as regards the increase in both prison places and prison officers, is not just to keep pace with the prison population but to tackle the problem of overcrowding.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: In view of the fact that what happened last night in the prisons must have caused great concern not only to people in this country but to members of the Prison Officers Association, is it not best that we should all welcome the fact that the POA has decided unilaterally to suspend its action and wish well the talks to which my right hon. Friend has referred?

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. I have tried to put forward a procedural suggestion, which is, I hope, in line with what he has said.

Ms. Clare Short: I think that the Home Secretary is failing to take full responsibility for a situation that has been building up for a very long time. I invite him to visit Winson Green prison in my constituency and to take with him the Prime Minister, who clearly does not understand the situation either. No education classes have been held and no workshops have been open in Winson Green because of the strain and the pressure on the Prison Officers Association.
We cannot look simply at the rise in the prison population; we have to look also at the rise in the remand population. That requires far more work because of visits to court every day. The Prison Officers Association has appealed for months for the Home Secretary's support to reorganise the prisons so that the prison officers are able to work reasonably and so that conditions for prison officers and prisoners can be improved. These appeals have been rejected. That is the cause of the build up of this great tension. It will not be resolved without talks that should be entered into unconditionally.

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Lady is right when she says that the story goes back a long time. Indeed, it goes back to the time when no money was being spent either on staff or on prisoners. The situation was deteriorating, without any remedy being sought.
The hon. Lady is also right to draw attention to the problem of the remand population. She will know of the efforts that we are making to reduce the remand population—for example, by experimenting with time limits on trial delays. I am very conscious of that problem. We are anxious to discuss these matters, and proposals to deal with them, with the POA, but on the basis which the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) agreed—that we should consult, but that, if agreement cannot be reached, then management decides.

Mr. Charles Morrison: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the situation at Erlestoke, in my constituency, would have been much worse if it had not been for the action and dedication of the prison governor, some members of the staff and police from Hampshire, I believe, as well as from Wiltshire. As prison officers are employed by the prison service, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is high time that they lived up to their sense of duty and responsibility and negotiated responsibly, particularly as their salary level, according to the national earnings survey, is now second only to that of newspaper printers?
Finally, in order to reassure members of the public who live in the vicinity of prisons, will my right hon. Friend review the provisions for security in prisons, in case of an emergency, so that the chances of future escapes are less likely? Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the troubles with some prisons—and this is true of Erlestoke—is that it appears to have been built for nice people but that some people inside it are very nasty?

Mr. Hurd: I agree with all of my hon. Friend's points. I certainly agree that the inquiry which, as I have said, will be necessary will have to encompass, in one form or another, his point about security in places like Erlestoke.

Mr. Terry Davis: As the Home Secretary has told us that it has been necessary for the police to be involved at several prisons during the past 24 hours, will he also tell us whether any of these police officers have been issued with guns?

Mr. Hurd: No, not to my knowledge.

Sir John Farr: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most important statistics must be the relationship between prisoners and staff? How does that relationship today compare with the relationship in 1979? While my right hon. Friend is dealing with that question, will he also please confirm that the death at Gartree was in no way connected with the dispute?

Mr. Hurd: Yes, I can confirm, according to the information that I have received, that the death which regrettably occurred at Gartree last night had nothing to do with the prison dispute. I missed the crucial point of my hon. Friend's first question.

Sir John Farr: I asked my right hon. Friend about the relationship between staff and prisoners in 1979 and how it compared with the position today.

Mr. Hurd: The mathematical relationship has improved. I do not have the figures in the exact form that my hon. Friend wants, but it flows from the figure that has already been mentioned in the House: that during our time in office the number of prison officers has increased by 18 per cent. and the prison population by 12 per cent.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Is the Home Secretary able to tell us whether governor grades, prison officers or prisoners were injured during the events of last night and this morning? Does he agree that the creditable decision by the Prison Officers Association to return to work is a sufficient gesture for talks to be resumed without any father preconditions, and, if not, why not? Does he agree that it might be wise to approach the agenda for talks with a view to arranging a no-strike agreement between the Prison Officers Association and the Government? Will he take steps to review the prison building programme so that the building is carried out where it is most needed, because that is not happening at present?

Mr. Hurd: There were a number of minor injuries, but so far I know of no major injuries. It is something approaching a miracle that people were not badly hurt or worse during what happened last night.
I tried to explain why I used rather careful phrasing in outlining the nature of the talks that can now take place, and why it is not sensible to expose ourselves again to the sort of exchange we had on Monday about the relationship between talks and industrial action. I think it was on Tuesday that I answered a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) about the possibility of a no-strike agreement. It would have to be by agreement, but many hon. Members on both sides of the House would be attracted by that idea.

Mr. John Wheeler: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many people regard his handling of this dispute as positive and welcome the initiative for further dialogue with the POA? First, when he meets the representatives of the POA, will he remind them that the POA is a uniformed service of the Crown and its industrial behaviour imposes upon other services of the Crown, notably the police and perhaps the armed services, an obligation to pick up the POA' s failings? Secondly, will he also remind them of the extent of investment in the prison service and especially about the prison building programme? After years of neglect by the Labour Government, that is an advantage not only to the prisoners but to the prison officers.

Mr. Hurd: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend's first point. He is a former prison governor and the point comes with particular force from him. I also agree with his second point. Five new prisons were opened in 1985–86 and 15 more are due to open by the early 1990s. Some 11,500 new prison places are being created. That is a substantial programme and it is in addition to refurbishment and the provision of sanitation. I do not agree with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) that the prisons are being built in the wrong places.

Mr. Martin Flannery: Does the Minister remember that yesterday a Conservative Member talked about prison officers earning £15,000 a year? The number of prison officers has been increased but not sufficiently. Is it not to be condemned that officers are working as many as 20 to 30 hours a week overtime? That is because there are insufficient prison officers to do the job.
Will the right hon. Gentleman take note of what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) said about education? The Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts had on it some hon. Members from the Government side and it placed before the House a most important report setting out the cuts in education in the prison service. It showed that there were insufficient officers to escort the prisoners to classes. We had a debate on the matter but that got us nowhere, even though we warned about what would happen. When will the Government take note of that report and do something so that prison officers do not have to take action?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Member spoke about prison officers' salaries. The average pay is £15,000, and that includes overtime. Overtime is not compulsory and quite a number of prison officers do not work overtime. However, a good many work 20 to 30 hours overtime a week. That is thoroughly bad but, to a large extent, it occurs because of the working practices and shift arrangements. That is one reason why it is crucial for us to discuss and change these arrangements.

Mr. Ian Gow: Is it not the unpleasant truth that those who were properly sentenced to terms of imprisonment are now at liberty, and that substantial damage has been done to public property as a result of a breach of duty by the very people who have a special duty to protect the public interest?

Mr. Hurd: There must be widespread anxiety in the country and, indeed, within the ranks of the POA about the events of last night. They were appalling and must on no account be repeated.

Mr. James Lamond: Does the Home Secretary feel that he is assisted in any way in grappling with this great problem by hearing at Prime Minister's Question Time perfectly serious questions about the matter being greated by jeers and boos and shrieks of laughter from the Government side, led by the Prime Minister herself?

Mr. Hurd: I am sorry to return to the matter, but I think it may have arisen because the Leader of the Opposition thought he was making a case in support of his argument but was in fact, making a case against it.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I fully support the action the Home Secretary has taken. Will he assure


the House that contingency resources will be available speedily to restore order and security in the unfortunate event of a further outbreak of industrial unrest?

Mr. Hurd: I referred in my statement to arrangements involving the police and to arrangements between each governor and each prison and the chief officer of the local police forces. I also mentioned central arrangements involving the Government and particularly my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: What proportion of the governor grades and the management of the prisons in the Home Office are former prison officers? How does the figure compare with promotion through the ranks of the police?

Mr. Hurd: Obviously, the structures are different, but I shall let the hon. Gentleman have the figures.

Mr. Derek Spencer: Leicester gaol has a special secure unit. Can my right hon. Friend reassure those hon. Members who have similar units in their constituencies that their special requirements have an appropriate high priority?

Mr. Hurd: I certainly give my hon. and learned Friend that assurance. As he will know, there was some trouble in Leicester prison last night. The problem is not entirely resolved in that my last report was to the effect that POA officers at the gate were still discouraging staff who turned up for duty. I hope that that problem has been resolved by now.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Would it not be advisable for the Prime Minister to abandon her jaunt to Tokyo in view of the fact that she is personally responsible for this trend in the breakdown of law and order which is a direct result of her Government's policies? If she does go, is it not a fact that nobody else in the Cabinet will be able to take any decision at all until she comes back?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Member is in his usual wild and flaming form. He seems to have very little notion about how these affairs are conducted.

Mr. Michael Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to assure those of us who have open prisons in our constituencies, such as I have at Ford, that the experience at Northeye has not been the general pattern? We accept that the prison officers and the governor did a good job in keeping things normal.

Mr. Hurd: Yes. That gives me an opportunity to say that not only at Ford but at the great majority of prison establishments there was no trouble last night.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: The country will have heard with immense relief the Home Secretary's statement this afternoon. Before too many diverse and disreputable organisations seek to parade their spurious claims against society under the banner of "industrial action", will my right hon. Friend make it perfectly clear that industry is not involved in this? We are talking about not action but inaction, and what we are seeing is civil disruption. Can he make sure that in future that phrase is used to describe this kind of action against society when organisations, however various, parade their grievances in the street?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is quite right. We have lapsed into this jargon but it is not accurate and can be unhelpful.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Is the Home Secretary aware that Mr. Peter Clarke, the officially adopted Conservative candidate for my constituency who describes himself as a loyal Thatcherite, made a public statement last week describing the prison service as incompetent, inefficient, brutal and stupid. He went on to call for the privatisation of the penal system. Would the Home Secretary care to comment on those Tory policies?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Member seems to have a particularly enterprising opponent, and I look forward to the intellectual debate that will follow.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Is not my right hon. Friend currently undertaking a study into alternatives to prison and to the possibility of reducing prison population by that means? In his talks with the POA, will he give priority to getting prisoners to education classes and make that part of the future duties of prison officers?

Mr. Hurd: One of the difficulties about the present situation is that prison officers are caught up with other activities. As my hon. Friend says, they might be better employed escorting people to and from education classes.
My hon. Friend asks about alternatives to custody. He knows that we cannot in any way direct the courts about who should go to prison, but where the courts can be persuaded that there are tough and practical alternatives to custody for minor offences, I hope that they will take them up.

Mr. John Ryman: May I ask the Home Secretary two specific questions? Does he agree that one of the fundamental problems is that basic pay is far too low in the prison service, so that to make a living wage a prison officer has to work overtime? That is why a vast amount of overtime is worked—the basic pay is insufficient to live on.
Secondly, what does the right hon. Gentleman propose to do about the extraordinary circular with which he has been inundating the judiciary, telling them what they already know—that their sentencing powers are very wide? I suggest that it amounts to an attempt to interfere with the judicial process.

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman's second point is nonsense. I answered questions about that before. The circular strictly followed precedent and was issued with the agreement of my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor. I think that the hon. Gentleman asked me two identical questions last night. The answer to the first is the same as last night—that there is scope for negotiations between the Treasury and the Prison Officers Association on basic pay. The irony is that those negotiations were about to begin when the present dispute escalated. I hope that if the procedural talks that I have outlined are successful, the substantial negotiations between the Treasury and the POA on basic pay can start.

Mr. Kenneth Warren: Will my right hon. Friend take account of and give praise to the excellent work of the Sussex constabulary in containing the problems at Northeye? I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) will want to refer to that if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker. Will


my right hon. Friend praise the police for the way in which they contained a serious situation and for looking after prisoners in my constituency?

Mr. Hurd: I have heard praise from all quarters for the work of the Sussex constabulary. It received small quantities of help swiftly from Kent and Surrey. Two prisons are involved—Lewes and Northeye. The constabulary has performed a necessary job skilfully.

Mr. Greville Janner: Does the Home Secretary accept that it is important to try to reach a settlement before the weekend, because at the weekend, in Leicester and elsewhere, prisons are manned to a large extent by people working overtime. If overtime is not to be worked, deputy governors and others who have been filling in from one prison to another will not be able to do so because they will have to look after the places where they are ordinarily stationed. Has the right hon. Gentleman contingency plans, and, if so, what are they?

Mr. Hurd: The answer to the second question is yes, but I shall not tell the hon. and learned Gentleman what they are at this stage. The answer to his first question is that I hope that it is inconceivable that the action will be resumed between now and the weekend. That would be the height of irresponsibility.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my constituents will be immensely grateful to the police from Leyland, who were called in to assist at Wymott prison, which is immediately adjacent to my constituency boundary? We are extremely grateful to them for what they have done. Is my right hon. Friend further aware that we on the Conservative Benches are getting a little sick of the sanctimonious claptrap from the Oppostion Benches, bearing in mind the Labour Government's irresponsible management of the prison service over the years compared to ours? We have caught more criminals, imprisoned more prisoners and are building more prisons.

Mr. Hurd: It is true that we have grasped and are trying to deal with the problems, which are much worse than they need have been because they were shirked by the Labour Government.

Mr. Ken Eastham: During this fearful and disastrous period for the Home Office, may I remind the Home Secretary that in the major cities we have the oldest, most overcrowded and worst prisons? This is causing great anxiety in built-up city areas. Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that there will be no overspill of fear and disaster in communities in cities as a consequence of the disturbances?

Mr. Hurd: It is true that many of the Victorian prisons are in the heart of county towns and cities. It is an essential part of our programme to build new prisons, as in my own county, which will partly or wholly replace those prisons, or to refurbish them. They were extremely well built. If their design can be modernised, they still have a good deal of life in them, in many cases.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Has my right hon. Friend taken the opportunity, in his talks with the Prison Officers Association, to remind it that this Conservative Administration not only say that they care about the prison officers' future and their working conditions, but, unlike

other parties, have announced the biggest building programme in the history of the prison service? We have shown to the prison officers that we care about their future. I hope that in return they will help us in the fight to maintain law and order.

Mr. Hurd: I agree with the spirit of my hon. Friend's remarks. I hope that we can recover from this disastrous situation and, as my hon. Friend wishes, build up in the mind of the public once again the importance and necessity of the work that the prison officers do. We can all help in that.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to take into account the subsequent business before the House. This afternoon I have given precedence to those who were not called last night. I shall now endeavour to call all those who have been standing provided that questions are brief.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Now that the Home Secretary is almost halfway to getting his earhole belted by a group of trade unionists, will the settlement be of the "Solomon Binding" variety, or will it be in the upper quartile? Whatever course is taken, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the British people will not be hoodwinked by the Government? The Government were elected in 1979 on a law and order ticket and promised a short, sharp shock for prisoners and to set the British people free, yet seven years later here we are with the Tory Government delivering a short sharp shock, not to prisoners, but to the British people and setting the prisoners free.

Mr. Hurd: That was not too subtle, and I disagree.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: I welcome the news that further talks are to take place, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the prison officers who took part in the action yesterday showed a gross and inexcusable dereliction of duty?

Mr. Hurd: I think that prison officers will want to reflect carefully on the action that they took in response to the request of the national executive of the POA, and will want to think carefully about the consequences which, in a minority of cases, flowed from it.

Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: Does the Home Secretary accept that for a long time many of us have opposed some of the abuses of prison officers, which are so detrimental to taxpayers, prisoners and their families, but those abuses should have been dealt with by himself and his predecessors a long time ago? They can be fairly dealt with only by patient and long negotiations, not by the seemingly provocative, confrontationist politics on which the right hon. Gentleman is embarked. Will he give an assurance that in any further talks not only 'will there be no preconditions, but that part of the package for ending the dispute will include proposals to reduce substantially the prison population, thereby creating a constructive and positive regime for prison officers and prisoners?

Mr. Hurd: I am in favour of patient discussion of those matters as long as there is progress. The trouble is that over many years progress in that area has been extraordinarily slow. It is not our action that has been provocative in the past few weeks. The hon. Gentleman makes his point again about reducing the size of the prison population. He


knows that I have no direction over the courts in that matter, so what one is talking about is persuading the courts that, in certain cases, as I have said, there are tough and practical alternatives.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the sit-in at Leicester prison during the night by 48 prisoners was peaceful only because of the able assistance given by five assistant governors? Will he join me in congratulating those assistant governors? Is he satisfied that there are enough assistant governors around to help? What will be done at the Old Bailey, which I understand had to be closed at 2 o'clock today because there were not enough prison officers to take the prisoners back to the remand centres?

Mr. Hurd: I shall keep an eye on the situation in Leicester to which my hon. Friend referred. I hope that the position in the law courts can revert to normal once the suspension of action takes effect.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is it not true that overcrowding in Britain's prisons is now so severe that more than half of Britain's prisoners are still slopping out, in 1986? Is it not true also that, even after the implementation of the Government's building programme, by 1991 there will still be 24,500 prisoners slopping out and, even after the completion of the programme by 1999, there will be 18,500 of Britain's prisoners slopping out? How is it possible to get peace in the prisons until conditions are improved?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman should really be ashamed to make that point. What we are doing is retrieving a situation of scandalous neglect. It is not just a question of the new prisons, which obviously are built with new sanitation, but of the refurbishment of existing prisons which means that integral sanitation is being installed in 10,000 existing cells. That is quite a programme.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: My right hon. Friend may be reassured to hear that I visited Lewes prison this morning and found that the governor and his assistant did a remarkable job last night. They are tired but in good heart today. The majority of the prisoners have behaved within all the rules of the prison. I believe that the majority of prison officers at Lewes prison would have wished to behave and to do their duty in the normal way. Unfortunately, there is a small coterie, both within the prisoners body and among the Prison Officers Association, which stirs up this trouble. This was illustrated in a response to the governor himself by one prison officer, who, when greeted, said with a threatening smirk, "Ah, but the day is not over yet." I hope my right hon. Friend will ensure that communications between all members of the Prison Officers Association will be as good as his communications with the officers themselves.

Mr. Hurd: I am glad that my hon. Friend visited Lewes prison this morning. The situation at Lewes was one of the most difficult, and there are still difficulties, as he has just told us. I have taken careful note of what he said.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Is the Home Secretary aware that this problem will not be solved simply by negotiations or discussions between prison

governors, assistant governors and the Association of Chief Police Officers, because one of the major problems in the prisons throughout Great Britain is that a prison officer cannot in any circumstances become a governor or an assistant governor, and most of the governors and assistant governors are direct entrants from the college at Wakefield into the prison system, without any experience of managing difficult prisoners, let alone short-term prisoners? This matter will be solved only through negotiations between the Home Office and the Prison Officers Association. Generous as I am at times, I must say that of the four former Home Secretaries still in the House of Commons, three would have resigned on this issue, and the right hon. Gentleman really ought to follow the example of those three.

Mr. Hurd: I think that it was one of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends who raised the question of the different structures of the two professions, the police and the prisons, and, of course, they are different. I have been very impressed by the high quality and sensitivity of prison management, and I believe, from what I hear, that there has been a substantial improvement in that quality in recent years.

Mr. Charles Wardle: I have reported to my right hon. Friend what I saw at Northeye last night and again this morning after the prison was retaken. Will he recognise that a potentially very dangerous situation was contained largely because of the courageous action of the prison governor and chief officer, and because of the prompt and highly professional support of the Sussex police? Will he accept that the unavoidable impression from what I saw last night was that the riot would not have taken place if there had not been an overtime ban? Will he bear in mind that the total and wanton destruction of Northeye should be contrasted with the recent completion of five new prisons, with 15 more prisons to be completed in the next few years?

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for passing on the news of his visit to his constituency prison. The two Sussex prisons were among the most difficult. My hon. Friend was in close touch with me last night, and I am most grateful to him for his efforts.

Mr. Michael Stern: Has my right hon. Friend heard the recent report from Bristol prison, with which I have been in touch all day, that that branch of the Prison Officers Association is still meeting to decide whether to obey the advice of its national executive and call off the overtime ban? If that report is correct—and I have no way of being certain about it—will my right hon. Friend join me and our hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of the Environment, who is also concerned with this issue, in calling upon the Bristol branch to take the advice of the national executive and contemplate the results of its inaction last night?

Mr. Hurd: I have not heard the report. Indeed, the report that I had from Bristol was rather to the contrary, that the local Prison Officers Association chairman, before the national executive decision, stated that staff would work normally there today, whatever the national executive decided. Obviously that needs looking into. If the situation is as my hon. Friend describes, I shall certainly agree with his appeal.

Mr. Kaufman: The Home Secretary, in response to his hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames), said that the prison officers' action had been taken at the request of the national executive of the Prison Officers Association, whereas the position is precisely the opposite, namely, that the national executive of the Prison Officers Association took the action on the mandate of its membership, who, under the Government's own legislation, took the Government's preferred course of a ballot, in which 78 per cent. voted. Of that figure 81 per cent. voted in favour of industrial action, which, as the Home Secretary has now acknowledged to me, under the ruling of the High Court cannot be abandoned, as he demands, without a further ballot. That being so, following his statement and his responses today he may be in danger of imposing requirements for talks which are too

rigid and may lead to a breakdown. I therefore recommend that the right hon. Gentleman studies the words that I put to him—they were not phrased idly and they were not put to him idly—since that kind of approach could be a means of achieving talks that might end the dispute.

Mr. Hurd: I shall certainly do what the right hon. Gentleman said at the beginning. I accepted when he first made the point that, because of the nature of its rules and the legal decisions that have flown from its rules, the Prison Officers Association has a procedural problem. There was nothing in the law of the land that forced the association to decide to instruct its members to follow the particular form of highly damaging and destructive action that it took. There was nothing that compelled it to do that. Therefore, I stand by what I said, but I will, of course, study all constructive suggestions that have been made.

Opposition Day

[I 3TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Caring for the Carers

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Michael Meacher: I beg to move,
That this House, noting that there are an estimated 5·5 million people from the age of seven to 70 years caring for disabled and elderly relatives at home, often for many years, pays the warmest possible tribute to those carers; and, further noting the research which shows that carers themselves suffer disproportionately from mental and physical illness, social isolation and poverty, calls upon the Government to take urgent action to improve their position, especially in view of the undoubted savings to public funds which flow from their commitment, and in particular to ensure that, in line with its stated policies on care in the community: (i) adequate respite care, both at home and in short-stay facilities, be assured by a considerable improvement in the level of support given to statutory and voluntary agencies, (ii) a flexible system of cash and other appropriate support services, such as home helps and home nursing, be available at times when the carer needs them and (iii) the invalid care allowance is made available to married women carers as recommended by the Select Committee.
Community care policies have been advocated now for a decade on the basis that it is much better for those who need support because of physical or mental infirmity to be cared for outside large institutions. It is now becoming increasingly recognised, however, that that policy has merely shifted the burden of care from the trained and supportive to the untrained and isolated in the form of the family. What started off as a policy of keeping dependent people out of institutions has backfired to the point where it has created more mentally and physicaly ill people—this time those who are supposed to be the carers.
At present, carers save the state over £5,000 million. That would be the cost to the state if it had to provide alternative institutional care. One would think that the state would aim to put back some of that money to support them in their invaluable role. Instead, the Government have been offloading responsibility on to their shoulders without even a sideways look at how they should be helping.
At present 5·5 million men and women are caring for an elderly or disabled friend or relative who could not live safely or comfortably without their help. They include about 1·25 million people who are caring for someone who is severely or extremely severely handicapped. I understand that as many as 100,000 of them have been caring for more than 10 years, and that thousands have been caring for as many as 30 years or more. Those figures give the lie to the myth that we are no longer a caring nation.
Today, far more people than ever before are making a major contribution to the physical and mental health of a family member, but they can maintain that role only if they have support. The Opposition have tabled this motion because of the absence of that support in far too many cases.
About two out of three carers are in poor physical or mental health at any one time. Recent surveys have shown

that nearly half are at serious risk of mental illness. Nearly seven in 10 suffer physical injury as a result of their caring duties, because there is a great deal of single-handed lifting involved, unlike in hospitals where nurses are ordered to lift only in pairs or using the appropriate hoists. The position is made worse for carers when a back injury cannot be rested or a hernia repaired because there is no one to take over their caring duties while they are in hospital.
Carers suffer emotional and psychological stress from social isolation, when other family members flatly refuse to help, or when statutory services simply fail to materialise in support. The complete submersion of one's own needs and preferences in those of another and feeling wholly out of control of one's life are major causes of depression in carers. They suffer financial penalty because disability and frailty nearly always lead to reduced income and increased outgoings. The Government should not be so mealy-mouthed about that by altering the word "poverty", which we use, to "disadvantage" in their amendment. Carers suffer "poverty"—and we use that word advisedly.
Many entitlements to benefit are lost as soon as a disabled person moves in with a family member. An elderly disabled parent can no longer claim supplementary pension and will lose heating and diet allowances. Most important, carers' problems are often multiple, not of one type alone. Physical injuries, psychological stress, and financial hardship are often compounded. In addition, many carers have duties towards not only one single disabled, or extremely disabled, person, but to two, or even three. I could give many examples, but I shall cite one.
A woman of 50, whom I know, cares for her husband who is 20 years older than she is and is suffering from dementia. Her parents, who are in their 90s, and her mother's sister live with them. Both her mother and her mother's sister are physically frail, and her mother is also blind. She receives assistance only from a district nurse who comes once a week to give her mother a blanket bath. Such cases are typical. There is nothing exceptional about them.
All the evidence shows that the more handicapped and dependent a relative is, the less support a carer will receive from formal and informal agencies. That makes the cumulative burden all the harder to bear. The more disabled a relative, the fewer the people who are prepared to give the necessary assistance. It is because volunteers and neighbours are of little help when a disability becomes advanced, which is when help is needed, that statutory support is urgently required.
Above all, the debate centres on the unrecognised needs of women. More than one in eight women is a carer, and four out of five carers are women. Their position is much worse than that of their male counterparts because they are much more likely to have to give up their jobs. They have less money, experience more stress, and are less likely to receive support services. To add insult to injury, married and cohabiting women are denied invalid care allowance, which is the sole benefit paid to people who are prevented from undertaking full-time work because they are carers.
The problem will not go away. As the numbers of elderly people increase—that section of the population will grow fastest towards the end of the century—an increasing number of people will need assistance if they are to continue to lead independent, fulfilled lives. Our


intention today is to make it clear that carers cannot and must not be expected to bear the full weight of the Government's community care policies unseen, unpaid and undervalued. That is the central theme of the debate.
I take this opportunity to pay the warmest tribute to the Association of Carers for its dedicated and tireless campaign to bring this vital issue to the attention of the nation.
At present, the position of carers is worsening. The Social Security Bill will leave carers entitled to long-term supplementary benefit worse off by £6·90 a week. In addition, they will have to pay the first 20 per cent. of their rates from that reduced income. The Government have refused to move on the European Advocate General's recommendation on the Drake case, made a week ago. They have talked of the money being spent on services instead of on invalid care allowance. The truth is that the allowance is not being paid and the services are not being provided. The Government failed to support the carers' clause in its original form in the private Member's Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke). Therefore, they have denied carers the right to be assessed for their ability to care or to continue caring, and that is extremely important to carers.
Even the Government's helping-the-community-tocare programme—I pass over its tiny £10·5 million budget—has been a wasted opportunity for carers, because almost none of the funding has been directed towards increasing statutory services to carers as a right.
Our motion calls on the Government to provide some real, substantial increase in support for carers in ways which they want. First, carers—who have often given up full-time work to undertake their caring role—want an income independent of those whom they look after. Following the clear prompting—I know that this is a recommendation—of the European Court, we in the Labour party believe that the Government have an undeniable duty to pay invalid care allowance to married and cohabitating women. I have received legal and counsel's opinion that if, in June, the European Court decide that the Government are discriminating against women, and if they do not pay invalid care allowance to every eligible woman, regardless of whether she has claimed it, backdated to December 1984, they will be acting unlawfully.

Mr. Eric Forth: Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to say that any future Labour Government will immediately accede to any similar ruling, or, indeed, to any ruling, by the European Court of Justice? Is he now so enamoured of European Community institutions that that is his position?

Mr. Meacher: I believe that if a Labour Government had been in power for seven years, they would have paid the invalid care allowance to married women without waiting for a decision by the European Court. We do not believe in discrimination in social security matters. A British Government should not need external prompting.
It is no good the Government making noises about spending money on services. The fact is that invalid care allowance is an income replacement benefit. The Government have no more right to offer invalid care allowance or services to carers than they have to offer a state retirement pension or home helps and day centres to elderly people. Carers are entitled to income and to

services. It is false economy not to provide this balance of aid. In the absence of both, many carers are forced to give up a role that they would otherwise maintain. The alternative, institutional care, is a far greater cost to the state.
Carers want access to respite care, both in the home and in a residential setting, which is of a quality acceptable to the carer and the dependant. Such evidence as we have shows that respite care is patchy. I am aware that some local authorities provide excellent respite care, but they are few in number and mainly Labour authorities. More Tory authorities should provide such care. The existing respite care, however, is patchy, inflexible, inappropriate and often directed at the dependant rather than the carer. All too often, carers are placed in an intolerable position when the person they care for refuses to go into respite care, or states that they do not need it because they have a daughter to look after them.
I know that it is invidious to pick out the name of a voluntary organisation, because there are so many performing an important role, but I think it is fair to pay tribute to the work of Crossroads and other care attendant schemes which seek to offer a multi-purpose, paid worker, round the clock, every day of the week. It is only such schemes which enable carers either to continue at work or to take time out from caring to meet their own needs. That is the right model for respite care. All the tasks of the carer need to be covered; otherwise breaks for more than a few hours from caring would be impossible.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that an important aspect in attempting to maximise the provision for respite care is flexibility? Respite care should be available at short notice as a support service within the home or a place suitably near to the home. In case of illness or emergency, respite care should be available immediately.

Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman must be telepathic, as I was about to make that exact point. It is crucial that respite care is flexible enough to cover emergencies and unforeseen circumstances, as well as set and specific periods of care. That would enable the needs to be met.
Carers need advice and access to information. Many carers feel isolated. They do not know what, if any, services are available within the local community. At present, the vast majority of carers receive neither training nor support. There should be medical assessment of both the carer and the dependant. It is impossible to know what sort of services would be most suitable if neither the clinical condition of the dependant nor the medical capability of the carer has been checked. There should be a continuous back-up service and reviews so that help can not only be provided at times of crisis, but adjusted to match changing circumstances.
The Government in their amendment complacently talk about
continuing improvement in the level of support given to statutory and voluntary agencies".
For millions of carers and dependants that is a cruel joke. The lie is proven by the pathetically low community care expenditure, the continued rate support grant cuts and the drastic cuts in the voluntary sector budget due to the Government's abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan counties.
The Government are proposing a so-called social fund in the Social Security Bill. That fund will undermine community care policy and force many thousands of people into institutions. The Government have rejected the invalid care allowance for married women and revealed their true attitude to carers. On 28 January, the Minister for Health dismissed my plea for increased income support for carers on the ground that it would mean
a great big nanny state".—[Official Report, 28 January 1986; Vol. 90, c. 779.]
We reject that nauseating disregard for those who have given unremitting care and support to the disabled and the elderly year upon year, without complaint and without any allowances. By contrast to that disregard, the Labour party pledges to extend the invalid care allowance to married and cohabiting women. We do not accept the Government's feeble excuse that they cannot afford the meagre benefit of £23 a week for 96,000 women, when the same Government can find the money to pay private nursing homes £250 a week to look after elderly people.
We will appoint a carers' liaison officer to each social services department to identify carers in its area and to assess how best to meet their needs. We will seek to provide respite care and a flexible system of support services for carers. It will take time, and the services will have to be phased in as our economy recovers. However, we acknowledge the objective and will not shirk that responsibility.
We do not accept the present position, whereby carers are presented with the stark choice of looking after a dependant with minimal support and at great, sometimes crippling, cost to themselves or of putting their relative into permanent residential accommodation. The vast majority of carers are devoted to looking after and keeping their relatives at home. To do so they need financial, social and practical support. If the Government will not provide that, we will.

The Minister for Health (Mr. Barney Hayhoe): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
`noting that there are a substantial number of people from the age of seven to 70 years caring for disabled and elderly relatives at home, often for many years, pays the warmest possible tribute to these carers; and, further noting the research which shows that carers themselves often suffer from mental and physical illness, social isolation and disadvantage, recognises the action already taken by the Government to improve their position, especially in view of the undoubted savings to public funds which flow from their commitment; and in particular welcomes the Government's intentions, in line with its stated policies on care in the community and the availability of resources, that: (a) adequate respite care, both at home and in short-stay facilities, be assured by continuing improvement in the level of support given to statutory and voluntary agencies, (b) a flexible system of appropriate support such as home helps and home nursing be available at times when the carer needs them and (c) any judgment which may be made by the European Court relating to the invalid care allowance introduced by the Labour Government in 1976, be carefully considered by the Government and made the subject of a report to the House.'.
This debate gives the House and myself a chance to pay a warm tribute to the role of informal carers. I certainly welcome that part of the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), which was otherwise

characterised by pessimistic and exaggerated descriptions of these matters. I hope that his tribute to informal carers is echoed in all quarters of the House.
Last week The Sunday Times graphically described the pressures that a heavily dependent person represents to a family. The article explained that, even when practical help is provided to such a family, that help puts pressures on the family. I doubt whether there is any way of avoiding such pressures on informal carers, but without doubt all those concerned—the professionals, the voluntary agencies and the informal carers—who support such families need to work together to minimise the pressures upon carers.
The key significance of informal carers has, as the hon. Gentleman said, recently been referred to in our debates on the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Bill, introduced by the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke). I do not wish to add anything to what I said about that Bill on the Floor of the House and in Committee. I am glad that the Bill is making progress.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West made much of the invalid care allowance and married women. The Government have made their position perfectly clear. The cost of extending invalid care allowance to married women is estimated to be £100 million a year extra, net of savings on other benefits. Even if the resources were available, this should be seen in the context of priorities for social security spending as a whole. The present invalid care allowance arrangements were introduced by the Labour Government of 1976. I do not think that shone through the speech of the hon. Gentleman. This discriminatory legislation, which the hon. Gentleman derided, was introduced by the Labour Government. I am not sure whether he was a member of that Labour Government, but he was certainly a supporter of that Government. The judgment of the European Court as to whether the arrangements that were so introduced contravene the Community's directive on equal treatment is not expected until June. However, I repeat the assurance that it will be carefully considered by the Government and made the subject of a report to the House, as stated in the amendment.
Opposition Members are always keen to add to their list of promises to spend more and more. Indeed, I noticed that the hon. Member for Oldham, West was at it again today. I want to contrast their promises with the performance and record of this Government. For example, we have increased spending on benefits for the long-term sick and disabled by more than 50 per cent. in real terms. In cash terms, we have more than doubled the mobility allowance and taken it out of tax. We have ended some of the discrimination against women, which we inherited from the Labour Government, by abolishing the household duties test and introducing a new severe disablement allowance. We have also ended the invalidity trap—a move that helps 55,000 sick and disabled people.
Of course, there is no hon. Member who would not give high priority to support for the disabled and those who care for them, but we serve them ill if, as the hon. Member for Oldham, West has done, we make promises that it is beyond this country's capacity to fulfil.

Mr. Meacher: There have been no such promises.

Mr. Hayhoe: The hon. Gentleman's commitment to spend £100 million more on ICA seems clear. I assume that is on top of the £24 billion commitment that has already been made by the Labour party.

Mr. Meacher: rose—

Mr. Hayhoe: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman. I hope that he is about to explain how a Labour Government would fund that £24 billion of promises.

Mr. Meacher: Perhaps I can explain the canard of £24 billion that Ministers keep mentioning. Apparently, £2·5 billion of that sum is for equalising the retirement age at 60. Neither I nor anyone else in the Labour party has given that commitment. It simply shows what a total fabrication that total of £24 billion is. The Minister has mentioned the £100 million that the ICA would cost. My point was that there would be a net saving if more people were kept in the community instead of being put into private nursing or rest homes at a cost of £250 a week or more and at the expense of supplementary benefit.

Mr. Hayhoe: In effect, the hon. Gentleman is not promising to spend any more money. That contrasts with the attitude of some of his hon. Friends, who always want to know what extra money the Government intend to spend.
As the hon. Gentleman is in a mood to discard promises, perhaps he will turn his mind to the £4·5 billion commitment that he made last April, when he said that a Labour Government would pay a disablement costs allowance of nearly £60 a week on top of the existing attendance allowance. Does he stand by that commitment today, or does he wish to withdraw it? Disabled people and their carers have a right to know which of Labour's promises can be believed. Frankly, I think that they would be very unwise to bank on any of them being implemented.
As I have said, the Government fully recognise what families, friends and neighbours do in providing support within the community for the disabled and elderly frail. Real progress is being made, particularly in the provision of support for informal carers of heavily dependent people living at home. But that progress represents only part of the improvements made over the past six years in the health and social services generally.
Expenditure on the NHS has increased by about 24 per cent. in real terms between 1978–79 and 1986–87. In 1984, there were nearly 3,000 more GPs than in 1976, and as a result the average list size has been reduced. That is particularly important as the number of elderly people who require greater medical care is increasing. More than 3 million extra out-patient cases were dealt with last year compared with the year before we came to power. Community psychiatric nurses have increased in number. Indeed, the increase has been significant, as the number has more than doubled. Many more examples could be given, but I have quoted enough to show that on a range of measures significant improvements in the services available to patients have been made.
Progress has equally been made in the social services. We introduced the social services inspectorate in April 1985 to help to improve the quality and efficiency of services. The number of social workers has risen by 25 per cent., from 12,481 in 1978 to more than 15,600 in 1984. In the same period there was a 13 per cent. increase in the number of home helps, and we all know how important

they can be. Expenditure by social services departments increased in real terms by 19 per cent. between 1978–79 and 1984–85. Those increases in resources have been matched by the action that we have taken to encourage collaboration between the different statutory services.
We have placed emphasis on the key enabling role of social services departments in mobilising all the sources of support available in the community. We have widened the membership of joint consultative committees to include representatives of the voluntary sector and of family practitioner committees. We continue to seek improvements in services that provide support to those in the community who need it, with the recent publication of the consultation document on primary care.

Mr. Roy Mason: We estimate that there are 12,600 disabled people in the Barnsley area, which represents 7 per cent. of the population. Moreover, 7,000 of them are severely disabled and require constant care and attention night and day. The carers should clearly receive more financial recognition. In industrial towns, the number of disabled people is higher than average because of coal mines, factories, and so on. Local authorities in those areas would like to develop a much more comprehensive care and attendance service. What plans does the Minister have to assist local authorities to achieve that objective?

Mr. Hayhoe: I have already said that no hon. Member would fail to give high priority to the extension and improvement of services for the disabled, but such matters must be seen within the context of the availability of resources. Indeed, that is mentioned in our amendment.
I am talking about real improvements. I know that the hon. Member for Oldham, West may wish to concentrate on other areas. However, the imaginative proposals in the report of the review of the role of community nursing services, chaired by Mrs. Julia Cumberlege, which is now out for consultation, illustrate further ways in which services might be changed to meet better the needs of users, including informal carers. The crucial role of informal carers—families, friends and neighbours—who care for heavily dependent people living in the community should be much more widely recognised. They certainly need advice and information about how to cope, sometimes emotionally and often with practical problems.
Practical assistance can greatly help. I refer, for example, to the provision of bath hoists. We have already heard about the difficulties faced by elderly carers who have to do a lot of lifting. Moreover, the availability of some form of respite care can make all the difference. Being treated as a valued member of the team by those paid professionals helping to support the dependent person can also make all the difference. It was because the Government recognised that too often informal carers were ignored rather than supported by those providing health and social services that, during the past few years, considerable emphasis has been placed on the role of informal carers.

Mr. Tony Blair: Is the Minister aware that in constituencies such as mine, where Winterton hospital cares for many psycho-geriatric patients, patients are gradually being released into the community? Is he further aware that that is causing tremendous problems for


the families looking after them informally? The worst thing that could happen would be for the services provided by local authorities to be cut.

Mr. Hayhoe: I agree that the arrangements which are being made for people to move back into the community must be carefully considered and co-ordinated by all concerned. Generally speaking, the policies—they are not just this Government's policies, but they have been considered desirable for many years, as the hon. Gentleman recognised—are being pursued.
The DHSS has taken a variety of steps, some of them modest, which together add up to a significant programme of action. In 1983 and 1984, the Department's social work service ran a major national project to draw attention to the needs of informal carers and to encourage policy makers, managers and front-line workers to consider how support for a dependent person's informal carer could be made an integral part of the range of services needed for effective community care.
To continue the policy development beginning with that social work service project, several elements of the helping the community to care programme are specifically concerned with support for informal carers. The King's Fund is undertaking two projects. One is aimed at improving the quality and availability of information and training of use to informal carers about what services might be of help or about how to cope. The other, in cooperation with Age Concern, is to provide information and training directed at general practitioners and community nurses so that they are better equipped to advise carers of elderly people suffering from incontinence. A third element of the helping the community to care programme is the development of three demonstration districts—in east Sussex, Stockport and Sandwell—of voluntary sector services to support informal carers.
We have heard about the importance of respite care. It is right for dependent people to be cared for in their homes as far as possible, and I recognise the need for respite care in the interests of the dependent person and of his family or friends who support him. Respite care, as the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) said, is especially valuable when unplanned events or emergencies mean that the informal carer must give up his responsibilities for a time. Like many hon. Members, I know from personal contacts how valuable such respite care can be. I wonder whether full advantage is being taken of the variety of types of respite care provided through the voluntary organisations. This is being investigated in the demonstration districts that I mentioned, and there may be scope for advance in that area.
It is clear that there are hundreds of thousands of informal carers, but there has so far been no systematic information about their circumstances and numbers. The hon. Member for Oldham, West gave figures of 5·5 million carers and £5·3 billion. The latter, which is the amount alleged to have been saved as a result of existing policies, is a fanciful calculation.
Two major national surveys by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys will provide hard information. The general household survey has, for the first time, explicitly asked people whether they care for a dependent person, and those results should begin to be available at the end of the year. The major national survey of disabled people

includes questions about who cares for the disabled person, and it will provide information early in 1988 about the services that families with a dependent disabled person receive. The information from those two surveys will enable planning for community care to take better account of the needs of informal carers.
The comprehensive statistical information that will be provided by the OPCS surveys will be complemented by a programme of research being undertaken by the social policy research unit of the University of York, funded by the DHSS.
The initial social work service project is being followed up with two national seminars—one in London last month and the other to be held soon in Leeds—about support for informal carers specifically directed at those concerned with community nursing services.
For several years, the Department has supported national voluntary organisations directly or indirectly interested in informal carers through its general scheme of section 64 grants. The major national voluntary organisations concerned with the needs of client groups of dependent people, such as Age Concern, MENCAP and MIND, receive grants under the scheme and take an interest in informal carers as significant contributors to the well-being of the client group concerned. Other national voluntary organisations more directly concerned with the needs of informal carers also receive grants from the Department.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West mentioned the valuable work done by the Association of Carers. He will know that it receives a grant from the DHSS, as do Crossroads Care Attendant Scheme, Contact a Family, the National Association of Carers and their Elderly Dependants and other similar voluntary organisations at national and local level, all of which make significant contributions that are supported actively in the constituencies by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Meals on wheels is an extremely valuable service and an excellent example of productive collaboration between a social service department and a voluntary organisation—the Women's Royal Voluntary Service. The WRVS is already doing much, and I pay tribute to its work, which I hope will expand and develop in the months ahead. Many people, especially elderly people, depend upon the delivery of a meal to the door by the meals on wheels service. More that 28 million meals are provided every year, often by the dedicated members of the WRVS. As part of our search to improve the value of services, we have commissioned several research projects from the WRVS to test the feasibility and acceptability of offering alternatives to the traditional cooked meal delivery service, such as escorted shopping trips. We have asked the personal social services research unit at the University of Kent to carry out a study of the present position. We hope to set up a seminar to consider the subject, especially the different options for future development, early in 1987.
There is greater scope—I am buttressed in that belief by the conversations that I have had with Dame Barbara Shenfield, the leader of the WRVS—that we can do more. I hope that we can obtain better co-operation between the statutory agencies and the voluntary workers. We have made substantial progress in providing community care through, for example, joint finance.

Mr. Meacher: That is a joke.

Mr. Hayhoe: The hon. Gentleman says that that is a joke. When we came to power in 1979, the total spent on such programmes was £63·5 million.

Mr. Meacher: That was seven years ago.

Mr. Hayhoe: It has increased to £670 million since then. Of course, the hon. Gentleman always wishes to denigrate what we have done, because the Labour Government did so little when they were responsible. We have also made considerable progress in taking long-stay children out of large mental handicap hospitals and putting them into better provision in the community, including small NHS units for children who need health care. More than 2,400 children were in such hospitals at the end of 1980. At the end of 1984, there were fewer than 700, including those children in short-term care. Our latest estimates show that the numbers are now much lower.
We are committed to providing efficient and effective services for those who need them. For too long, the central key role played by families, friends and neighbours in community care has been ignored. Of course, it is not true to say that nothing more needs to be done by statutory and voluntary service providers before adequate support is provided for all informal carers. We have recognised their key importance and brought it to the notice of those planning and providing services locally. We are developing and exploring new and better ways of providing support. We are undertaking the research to provide solid evidence for future planning. I believe that that is a record of progress, and it lays the foundations for significant further progress over the next few years. I commend the amendment to the House.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. Time is very limited and many hon. Members wish to speak. I appeal for very short speeches.

Mr. Jack Ashley: The Minister for Health has just proved that he is incapable, not only of taking care of carers, but of making a decent speech on the issue. He accused my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) of being pessimistic, but my hon. Friend was reflecting the deep and profound pessimism of carers. The right hon. Gentleman should ask his hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security, who has responsibility for the disabled, what was said to him by the deputation of carers I took to see him a few months ago. The carers were profoundly pessimistic, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West explained. That was the reason for my hon. Friend's pessimism. He was reflecting the reality of the situation.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to an article in The Sunday Times. I cannot see how any Minister could read such an appalling and tragic article and refuse to do anything positive and constructive for carers. It beggars belief that the Minister could use the example of an article in The Sunday Times and make the bromide speech that he made today. The right hon. Gentleman said he wa glad that the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) was making progress, but he surgically removed from the Bill the provision relating to carers.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the figures cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West were fanciful. The right hon. Gentleman does not know the real figures, so he attacked my hon. Friend. The right hon. Gentleman has not taken the trouble to find out what they are. He said that the figures would emerge in 1988, but carers cannot wait until then. The Conservative party has been in power for seven years and Ministers for Health have had sufficient time to ascertain the position. The Minister said that he recognised the importance of carers, but he still made a wordy speech which offered no real progress. He has not satisfied the House on all those issues. In fact, I am sorry to say that he made a bad speech. His speech disappointed me, because I had hoped that hon. Members on both sides of the House would agree on this issue.
The debate is not about compassion; it is about justice. People have become carers because they love the people for whom they care and because they have compassion for them. It is unjust for society and it is wrong for the Government to expect those people to become virtual slaves in caring for disabled people. Severe disability damages people's lives. It is wrong that a disability should damage the lives of those caring for disabled people. In fact, it devastates their lives, yet that occurs all too often. It is unjust, unfair and intolerable.
The Government's amendment seems similar to the early-day motion which was supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House, but there are some significant differences. The early-day motion asked the Government
to ensure that … adequate respite care … a considerable improvement in the level of support … a flexible system of cash and other … services, such as home helps and home nursing"—
and that
the invalid care allowance is made available to married women".
The amendment pays warm tribute to carers. We can all say that we pay tribute to carers. However, the amendment uses the phrase
in line with its stated policies … and the availability of resources".
We all know that that is shorthand for saying that funding will not be provided and that the money is not available. That is what the Government are saying. The Minister's fine words mean Only that, because of a lack of resources, the carers will not receive the money.
The amendment refers to the European Court judgment and says that the Government will carefully consider it. That is not good enough. We do not want the judgment just to be carefully considered by the Government. We want it to be accepted by them. There is a great difference between considering and accepting.
It is impossible to overstate the importance of the issue to women. There are some men carers but basically it is a women's issue. A few months ago, in the presence of my wife, I attended a meeting of carers at county hall across the river. I went as their friend. In the 20 years that I have been a Member of Parliament I have never had such a rough ride. Those women carers, of many creeds and kinds—some black, some brown and some white—were unanimous in their bitterness at being exploited. When I tried to explain that, along with many hon. Members, I was campaigning for carers, they were vindictive. They said that it did not matter what we were trying to do. The only thing they cared about was what we were doing and what we had accomplished. I could not say that we had


accomplished anything. I have never known women who felt so bitter. They are treated badly. They feel that they are abused by authority. A loving task to them has become a prison sentence, where no adequate support is provided.
Some of the country's 1·25 million carers are driven to despair, are in ill health and in need of care. Some carers are prisoners of their own conscience. Cash is the most important requirement. It has been estimated, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West said, that more than £5 billion is saved every year. I pay a warm tribute to Judith Oliver of the Association of Carers for the marvellous work that she and her colleagues have done and to Pat Osborne of the Crossroads association for the wonderful work that that group has done. Those associations are demanding cash, and rightly so, because cash is crucial.
Back-up services are also being demanded. There is no round-the-clock nursing help and carers are neglected, especially at weekends. There is little respite provision. Above all, carers need a break. They cannot stand the eternal grind 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. Yet often, when they contact the emergency services, they find that they get little help. Carers are not given adequate training. They are given a rough deal. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West rightly emphasised, the more disabled a person is, the more difficult it is to get help. Carers are taken for granted by national Government, local authorities and the public.
I have no doubt that the main reason why carers are shabbily treated is that they are women. This is a women's issue. If most men were carers, responses and attitudes would be very different. People look down on women. The Government look down on women. Women are shabbily treated, and women carers are the most shabbily treated of all. That is the main reason why the Government pay scant regard to them. I hope that the Government will pay due regard to this debate, because carers can easily sink and become submerged non-persons unless we can help them. There is a strong feeling among carers that they want not just cash but recognition and a sense of identity. That is what they require.
I suggest that we should provide for carers a genuine new deal, which includes eight points. First, we should give carers an honoured place in society. Secondly, we should recognise their wonderful value and make civilised and adequate provision for them. Thirdly, there should be adequate Government recognition of the serious problems hidden behind the sad curtains and the lonely wheelchairs. Fourthly, there should be an end to discrimination against married women and co-habitees. They should be paid the invalid care allowance now rather than have to wait until the Government are dragged kicking and screaming by the European Court to undertake reform. Fifthly, there should be a careful assessment of the role, capacity and functions of all carers and the burdens that they relieve. Sixthly, home helps and nursing helps should be made available when needed and for as long as required. Seventhly, the provision of expert care is needed so that carers can have a break, rather than a breakdown. Eighthly, there should be planned provision of information and advice about benefits, services and options.
Carers are exploited because they care and are dutiful, because they love their dependent relatives, because they want to help and because they are women. It is time that we ended this scandal and gave them justice.

Sir David Price: I feel somewhat upstaged by the speeches of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) and of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health. Those who follow the Order Paper may recall that on 10 February I tabled a not dissimilar private Member's motion. On listening to the opening speeches in this debate, particularly that of the hon. Member for Oldham, West, I could not help but feel that if I rather than the hon. Gentleman had opened the debate—I say this in due modesty—I might have created a better atmosphere for the debate. Above all, this is a subject on which we should try to strike a consensus. I shall not, therefore, reply to some of the more partisan of the hon. Gentleman's points or take up some points raised by the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley).
I start with the proposition that many more dependent people are cared for at home than are cared for in the ordinary hospitals, institutions and rest homes of all the statutory, charitable and private groups combined. That is our point of departure. To set it out in a little more detail, I shall give the House a round up of the facts, some of which have been mentioned.
More than 1·25 million people are caring for a relative or friend who is severely or very severely disabled due to illness, accident or the infirmities of old age. About 100,000 of those carers have been doing so for 10 years or more and some have been doing so for more than 30 years. More than 5·5 million people are supporting a person who because of age, illness or disability could not live safely or comfortably without the help of the carer. More women now care for an elderly or disabled relative than care for a child under 16. That fact, which has not yet come up, is one of the most penetrating facts to grasp in the debate. As the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South said, four out of five carers are women.
Recently published reports confirm that there is an inverse ratio of support for carers—the more handicapped the dependent relative, the less support is made available. Research in Yorkshire has shown that the more disabled the relative, the fewer the people able to undertake the care because it is too difficult and onerous. That means that volunteers and neighbours find it increasingly difficult to give meaningful help as the disability becomes more advanced and severe.
If 1 per cent. of those caring just for the elderly suddenly gave up, our health and social services would find their budgets being increased immediately by 20 per cent.

Mr. Allen McKay: That is an interesting point. The social services department in Barnsley estimates that its budget would probably increase by twice as much again. I notice that the hon. Members for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price), for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley), for Cheltenham (Mr. Irvine) and for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) and 43 other colleagues have signed early-day motion 299. I have been listening intently to the hon. Member for Eastleigih, and I hope that he will join us in the Division Lobby.

Sir David Price: If the hon. Gentleman had listened, he would have heard me say that I wanted the debate to achieve a consensus. I was referring to a major point. The hon. Gentleman can keep his party points for his party's committees.
It is estimated that those caring for the elderly at home save the statutory services £5·3 billion a year. It is important to take on board also the fact that the cost of a bed in a residential establishment is between £140 and £500 a week. By contrast, the maximum rate of attendance allowance available only to the most severely disabled living at home is £30·60. The invalid care allowance is only £23 a week.
That puts the role of the carer and the scope of the problem within statistical dimensions. The problem is severe. It covers age spectrum. It is important to remember that many carers are themselves elderly people.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: rose—

Sir David Price: No, I have given way once already, and I am trying obediently to be brief.
It is generally acknowledged that there are a number of hon. Members who have personal experience of caring. They will be with me when I say that the reality of caring for someone whom one loves is so private and intimate that even in a debate like this the House will not expect us to share our personal experiences. I certainly do not intend to do so. Suffice it to say that most carers have consciously chosen to look after their dependent relatives at home because they love them. They do not, therefore, want to hand the job over to anyone else.
Caring for someone who is heavily dependent is continuous, tiring, stressful, and restrictive. It can impose serious strains on other relationships within the family. Many of us have constituents with a severely disabled child and have seen how this can have repercussions on other children in the family who are not disabled. Outside help at key times on both a regular and a one-off basis can make the difference between total breakdown and a successful and loving partnership between the carer and the cared for.
That leads me on to consider—and this is what future discussion should be about—the different forms of support that are needed. In the interests of brevity I shall try to go straight to the heart of the matter. I invite the House to consider the various ideas put forward by the Association of Carers. Time prevents my going through them, but I would mention one point which comes in its submission to hon. Members:
It does appear at the moment that the presence of a carer is often seen by statutory services to obviate the need for supportive services, whereas carers are almost invariably in need of help in the very onerous tasks which they have opted to undertake out of love.
I think that this is true.
I should like to draw the attention of the House to the report of the Select Committee on Social Services and the 101 recommendations that we made. Let me emphasise that we made them on an agreed basis, across the party spectrum, which is the spirit that I wish to introduce, and maintain, in this debate. I hope that when replying to the debate my right hon. Friend will declare the Government's support for those measures.
Each of us who takes part in this debate will have his own suggestions for improvement. We have already heard

a number from the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South. I should like to suggest a few briefly, in encapsulated form.
We need more back-up in the home. This means more home helps and more meals on wheels. I pay tribute to the progress which has been made, but we have only 50,000 home helps in England, and that is not enough. There is uneven provision between men and women. In support of that I quote from a recent report of the Equal Opportunities Commission:
Evidence presented in our report shows that nearly 60 per cent. of male carers studied received home helps compared with only 34 per cent. of female carers, and 28 per cent. of men had the support of the meals on wheels service compared with 16 per cent. of the women. It seems services which provide direct help with the daily domestic routine are more likely to be provided if the carer is a man. So the work and health of women carers is affected to a greater degree.
We would like to see progress made in this area, not only for its own sake, but because this is an inequality which I find unacceptable.
We need more medical support in the home. My right hon. Friend referred to the primary care report which has just come out. We have to build on that. We must support the general practitioner service, which is the linch pin. We ought to extend the role of the community nurse, the community physiotherapist and the occupational therapist. In my part of the world they are extremely helpful to the handicapped.
We need an extension of the care assistant or care attendant. I call in aid the development of the care attendance service in Hampshire. On the hospital side, we need to have relief on call, what in our report we refer to as the "revolving door". If a chance is taken in putting people back into the community and the carers run into difficulties, they can by this means get those people back into hospital. This may have to be done at awkward times—which is when it nearly always happens—and not during the conventional surgery hours.
There is a need for the carer to have time off from caring. Age Concern once described the life of a carer of someone with dementia as the 36-hour day. Earlier, I heard people talking about problems of overtime. If one is caring for someone who is severely disabled, there is no question of normal working hours or overtime; it is a total commitment. So the need for relief is often urgent.
What happens when the carer runs out of steam? We all get these tragedies in our surgeries—a mother and father, now old-age pensioners, who, having looked after a severely disabled child who is now aged 40 or 45, can no longer provide the necessary care because they have literally run out of steam.
I support all the pleas to my right hon. Friend to get the invalid care allowance right. I have raised the issue, as have many right hon. and hon. Members. There is no longer any justification for not extending it to married women. As I said in a letter to The Times a few months ago, I very much hope that my right hon. Friends will be able to do it gracefully before they are compelled to do it by the European Court.
I hope that I have said enough to demonstrate the importance of carers to our nation. We need them. We cannot get on without them. I hope, too, that I have demonstrated that carers need more back-up, and more support, especially professional support, if they are to fulfil their role as carers and still have some personal life of their own.
I beg the House not to treat carers as if they were an object of pity or compassion. They do their caring willingly, as part of their role in life, out of love.

Mr. David Alton: The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) has spoken with considerable knowledge and a good track record in putting forward his point of view. He has set up an interesting agenda of proposals which will probably find cross-party support in this Chamber. Above and beyond the debate tonight, there is plenty there for which we can gather a consensus. But such is the nature of these debates that this evening at 7 o'clock we shall have to decide which way to vote on the motion. I can find nothing in the motion with which to disagree, and I am glad that it is before us for debate.
I might perhaps enter a number of caveats and additional points, but some of these have already been touched on and, because I know that other Members want to take part in the debate, I shall try not to detain the House.
The first of my three caveats is a plea for a proper balance in dealing with carers between the voluntary sector and the statutory sector. I know from my experience as president of the Liverpool old people's hostels association and from discussions with the Merseyside council for voluntary service and Liverpool young persons advisory service that they are very stretched for funds. They believe also that they are having to deal with a local authority which almost seems philosophically opposed to the spirit of voluntarism, and that can make life difficult for the voluntary organisations. If adequate support is to be given to those who care and who do the caring work, resources and support must be provided for voluntary organisations. Although I am glad to see a reference in the motion to increased support for voluntary organisations and agencies, I should like the Government to look at ways in which their position might be better protected.
Another caveat concerns the division of responsibility between health and social services departments. Often they are hopelessly unco-ordinated. To rectify this, I would like to see the health and social services provision for adults amalgamated under directly elected regional government. I would also like to see the social services provision for children integrated into a family courts system.
My third caveat is about flexibility, of which there needs to be more if we are to give more help to carers—a point on which the hon. Member for Eastleigh touched. Flexibility in the provision of care requires the breaking down of the entrenched intransigence of some groups of people, regrettably some of them trade unionists who defend working practices and insist that care may be provided only at certain times—for example, not at weekends. I hope that the Opposition Front Bench will use its considerable influence with the trade unions to ensure that some of this inflexibility is broken down.
In addition, we should like to see a charter for carers that would establish their inalienable right to an income that is independent of their dependants. Secondly, there should be access to information, which is often denied by the professional to the carer. Thirdly, as other hon. Members have said, there must be respite care, which is

so important. Fourthly, there must be increased governmental encouragement and support for organisations such as the Association of Carers, with opportunities for more training to be provided under their aegis.
Enhanced nursery provision would enable women to have more flexibility in caring for children or relatives and would increase opportunities for women generally. Our record is not good. In France, 90 per cent. of three-year-olds attend nursery. In West Germany, the figure is 70 per cent. Here, it is only 2·8 per cent. My city of Liverpool intended to open six new nursery classes in 1985–86, but the Secretary of State withheld his approval. The authority will again seek approval for 1986–87. I hope that this time the Secretary of State will give the go-ahead.
These are the caveats and addenda that I would enter, while supporting the Opposition motion. Like the Government in their amendment, we commend the estimated 5·5 million people who are supporting disabled or elderly relatives at home. We have all been sent details of how many it is estimated are in our constituencies. I am told that there are 9,500 carers in my constituency. However, we repudiate the Government's contention that they are giving adequate support to the carers. Like the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), I feel that the Social Security Bill, which should have been a golden opportunity, makes no specific provision for carers, and some will be up to £6·90 a week worse off because of the changes being made to long-term supplementary benefit.
What thanks is that to people who have sacrificed so much for the good of others? What sort of thanks is that to those who save the state millions of pounds? If just 10 per cent. of those who are cared for at home had to be looked after in residential institutions, the public cost would be over £1 billion a year. In comparison, the cost of extending invalid care allowance to married women—a move for which there is all-party agreement, and which would be of real help to the carers—would be less than one tenth of that £1 billion a year, at approximately £85 million a year.
The key to the Government's intentions comes in that immortal phrase used by the Minister for Health, "the availability of resources". If a Government can find, as this Government did a few weeks ago, £1 billion to give away in tax reductions, and can look next year to a further £4 billion for cuts in taxes, why can it not find greater resources to support the carers? That is the touchstone on which the Government's sincerity should be judged. By that touchstone, we shall vote against them tonight.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I am fast reaching the stage when I find it hard to take seriously the views expressed by the Labour party, because its answer to all difficulties is the profligate application of a cheque book—somebody else's. I have been closely involved in caring for carers for many years. It is no news that their difficulties are not only financial. There has been a certain amount of rivalry over voluntary organisations, and I speak on behalf of the National Council of Carers and their Elderly Dependants, now reaching its 21st birthday and so well in advance of many others who have more recently joined the debate on the needs of carers.
The council was founded at a time when nearly all the caring for elderly relatives was done by unmarried women—the single daughter staying at home looking after the


elderly relatives. The invalid care allowance, which was introduced in 1976, was brought into existence largely under the pressure of organisations such as the council.
I share the views of those who hope that the Government will find it within their power to find the £100 million necessary to pay the invalid care allowance to married women. I am content for that to wait for the fully considered judgment from the European Court, and until it has been considered by the Government and they have made it the subject of a report to the House. However, having been through all those necessary steps, I have every confidence that the Government will do the right thing by the many married women caring for dependants. I pay tribute to the Government for the steps that they have already taken in extending the invalid care allowance to non-relatives and doubling the amount of part-time earnings that can be allowed before entitlement to the allowance is affected.
I wish to speak particularly about the carers of the elderly. It is easy to throw all carers into the same discussion, as they have many aspects in common, but they also have distinguishing features. For example, there is no doubt that elderly parents will be very much a growing part of our community as the number of residents over 85 doubles in the next century. Increasingly, elderly people will be looking after the very elderly.
Many contributors have said that it is too easy to take carers for granted, and to assume that all is well for them until they reach breaking point. I hope that the debate will highlight some of their needs and the ways that they can be given help before they reach that breaking point.
We have spent too little time concentrating on some of the good practices that have been established throughout the country. In my constituency, I have been consistently impressed by pioneering projects and ideas about meeting the needs of the elderly and carers. It has become fashionable to say that we always want more without looking carefully at what is being achieved, learning from our successes and then trying to spread good practices to other areas.
In my constituency I have visited many projects for sheltered housing, cluster housing, good neighbour schemes and, above all, schemes using telecommunications systems to keep in touch with dependants. The recent census returns showed a doubling of the number of people living on their own. People are increasingly reluctant to live with their relatives, whether semi-dependent or independent. Using telecommunications networks is the way to ensure that the welfare of the elderly is provided for without their losing privacy.
It is too easy to say that we need more resources for health care, but we have had a 24 per cent. increase in real terms in spending on the Health Service. Above all, I applaud the 63,000 more midwives and nurses since 1979. I hope that we shall be able to discuss the role of nurses in the light of the report by Julia Cumberlege. Nurses are independent professionals who should have increasing scope for practising on their own, and are particularly important in meeting the needs of dependants.
During the autumn, I was fortunate enough to spend a morning in my constituency with a district nurse and a health visitor and I was constantly impressed by the new practices, developments and schemes available for the elderly. It is more fashionable to say that we do not have enough, and in many areas there is room for improvement, but when one goes out on the twilight scheme, which

offers help to put dependants to bed in the evenings, and many other schemes, one realises the recent remarkable achievements.
I should like to share with the House my pride in the new geriatric hospital in my constituency, which has cost 1·2 million to build. For too long, health care has too easily concentrated on the dramatic, exciting and acute operations rather than on the less exciting Cinderella services for the mentally ill, the mentally handicapped and the elderly. It is too easy not to recognise the great redirection of resources, not always met with favour by the power leaders in the NHS, but making an enormous difference for those in need of health care.
Much mention has been made in the debate about the role of voluntary organisations. These organisations do the best work and the work which we can be most proud of in our country. Many voluntary organisations have not been mentioned—for example, the Alzheimers Disease Society and the Red Cross. Many voluntary organisations organise schemes and work together with statutory authorities.
We have not so far in the debate mentioned the needs of former carers. Reference has been made to those people who give up five, 10, 15 or 20 years of their lives to care for a young or an old dependent relative. That may result in the carer becoming extremely isolated as the dependent relative's needs take up all the carer's time and attention. When that relative dies, the carer can be quite bereft and take some time before he is ready to return to employment. I hope that the Minister will consider whether it is possible in the provision of benefits to give that carer longer after the death of the dependent relative before the relevant benefits are lost. As a member of the National Council of Carers and their Elderly Dependants said, "Carers cannot walk from the graveside straight to the jobcentre."
Carers have financial needs and there are extra burdens to caring quite apart from the loss of earnings. I am confident that, with due consideration and careful planning, the Government will find their way to keep in line with the rulings of the European Court. Carers also have practical needs—relief and respite care, day arid night sitting services, day centres, lunch clubs, recreation and leisure facilities. It is vital that there should be joint planning and careful surveys of the needs in specific areas. It is also vital that there are mechanisms for offering information and advice to carers.
There is, above all, one area which is so easily undervalued by those who see everything in basic financial terms which requires consideration—the emotional needs of carers. Carers are isolated and unacknowledged. Their status needs to be raised in the eyes of us all, and local authorities, voluntary organisations and professional bodies at every level must be aware of carers. I hope that the tributes paid in the debate to the commitment of informal carers will lead to a greater appreciation and understanding of those unsung heroes throughout the country.

Mr. Bill Michie: I am acutely aware of the shortage of time and I will therefore speak for no more than five or six minutes, not because this serious debate does not deserve more of my time, but because many of my colleagues wish to speak.
Most hon. Members are aware of the problems in our constituencies and know of the many thousands of people


who are affected by the lack of resources for caring for loved ones, neighbours or families. Some 12,000 people are affected in my constituency and at least 1,200 of them are severely handicapped and have, as already mentioned, extra problems which are difficult to resolve immediately unless more resources are available. A special kind of person is required to deal with such cases.
I believe that the main argument relates to resources. The hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) said that it was all very well for Opposition Members to talk about providing more money but that that money always comes from someone else's cheque book. I do not know who these aliens are, these "someone elses", these people who do not appear to belong to our society. The hon. Lady seemed to imply that they were removed from reality. I do not believe that many people would object to helping the people who help others. The cheque book mentality is not a good argument for inaction.
Sheffield has done a great deal of work to help carers. On many occasions the district council in Sheffield has told me that there are three aspects about carers, and they have been outlined already in the debate. The first is that practical help and flexibility are required. At present there are services in Sheffield which do the best that they can. However, local authorities generally find it difficult to give the support at the right time in the right place. There was a story of one local authority which could not provide services early in the morning, late at night or at the weekend because it could not afford it, yet it could afford to offer places in homes which could cost much more. We must locate the resources in the right places. Flexibility in that area is vital.
Sheffield is trying through experimental areas such as the scheme at Ecclesfield to provide such flexibility and Sheffield hopes to introduce further changes to help the carers who are caring for 24 hours a day. It is a fact of life that, without additional staff, it will cost almost £175,000 in premium rate payments to fund that experimental project. Such a sum is not easy for local authorities to come by.
Secondly, local authorities have the problem of finding enough cash for adaptions. It is vital that carers should have such adaptions in their homes. In Sheffield, in 1985–86, expenditure on adaptions was £1middot;2 million. There have been many debates over the past year or two about public expenditure. It is obvious that, in relation to revenue, that money will not be forthcoming and therefore we will have problems in sustaining programmes which we believe to be essential for adaptions.
My third point relates to respite care. Occasionally people want a break, particularly those who care for the severely handicapped. They need time to restore morale and recover physically and emotionally from such caring. I know that some of the carers in my constituency will not ask for such a respite service, but I believe that such a provision should at least be available in a civilised society. It is impossible to continue day and night caring without some respite.
There is an early-day motion which is more or less in line with the motion we are debating. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Sir J. Osborn) signed that early-day motion and I hope that he will be voting with the Opposition tonight. Most of my colleagues have said that the needs of carers are desperate. Their needs are not being

shouted about because they exist behind closed doors and caring is done in a quiet and sincere manner. That does not mean that the need is not great. The need is present and the House and the rest of society have a responsibility to fulfill our commitment to carers.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has set an admirable example. If other hon. Members do the same, I shall be able to call all those who wish to speak.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: As I was one of the proposers on behalf of the parliamentary panel for the personal social services which put forward the early-day motion which has been adopted by the Opposition as their motion tonight, some explanation as to why I intend to support the Government may be required. However, that is not too difficult to explain. The Opposition carefully chose the motion to scourge the Government's record and in a way which paid no heed, for example, to the galloping inflation which pauperised many of the people who now need help from the state because their savings were stripped by out-of-control public expenditure which made it impossible to make sensible provision for their later years.
I will be supporting the Government. However, I should like to make it clear that we are discussing a major problem. There is a huge bulge in the number of elderly people needing to be cared for. We must plan for that bulge just as carefully as we plan for any bulge in school or university populations.
We are sadly very much a behind-closed-doors society. It is the dream of most of us to rush back from our day's work, slam our front door in the face of the world, and stay at home with perhaps a small number of friends or by ourselves. That is running away from the thought of any commitment to others. We must ask ourselves whether that really is the way forward for our society. If it is, it will be the end of the willingness to care. It has been well pointed out that in the enormous increase in the number of step-families there will be a huge increase in the number of kin but perhaps a considerable falling off in the commitment of those kin to individuals within that relationship.
As we have heard today, carers have a range of needs, but one of the things that they need most is a 24-hour response. For reasons which I entirely understand, carers, having committed themselves to looking after their loved ones, are too reluctant to accept help from volunteers. They see it as a job in which they have developed considerable skill and they are reluctant to share it with volunteers. They need help in coming to terms with what has been demonstrated to be a remarkable source of help.
Secondly, we need more part-timers. I could not agree more with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) when he says that the trade unions should be encouraged in every possible way to make it possible for people to respond outside the ordinary working day.
Thirdly, organisations such as Crossroads need support. It is enormously important that organisations which are not yet big enough to have formed major fundraising arms should be given a great deal more help with their headquarters' costs than organisations which have grown used to raising their own money. That is important.


The delay which accompanied the grant to the headquarters of the Association of Carers made its life difficult. Therefore, we ask for both speed and rather more understanding of the needs of the headquarters of such organisations.
To provide care through the local authority bureaucracy is expensive, not because local authorities are unduly costly—some are, some are not—but because it is difficult for them to provide care cheaply. Liaison officers will be enormously costly, however worthy they may be. There have been examples of women meeting together and forming their own co-operative to provide care and that is a major way forward for helping carers to find the sort of 24-hour response that they need.
With the huge growth in demand, there is a need for new sources of funds. Ever since the war we have had a society which has put an enormous premium on people spending their money on their house. That is their principal form of saving. That is the most immobile form of saving and the most emotionally tied-up form of saving. It leads to poverty because people cannot bring themselves to trade down-market to free funds. They find it enormously difficult to shake off the emotional ties of their home and so they remain isolated from other people who might be more able to provide them with help. As a society we need to look seriously at ways of helping people in such a situation to release the funds which are tied up in their home. Some schemes are already available, but we need to look at the matter much more coherently and consistently than we have done.
I commend the Government for carrying out research into the best way of allocating what will always be, by definition, inadequate resources. However, their research and the findings which will come from it will cry out for more resources. What we are doing is, perfectly properly, postponing for a moment the spending of money so that we know exactly how best to spend it. But the money will have to be found. As our society begins to grow even faster—it has had several years of consistent growth—each of us should ask whether we would not prefer to spend some of our new prosperity on this neglected source of help.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe). I am vice-chairman of the social services support group in the House of Commons and it is my intention to vote for the motion before us. The words of the motion are identical to those of early-day motion 299 for which the hon. Gentleman and I acted as sponsors a few weeks ago and which 147 hon. Members have signed. If it was right to sign the motion then, by what token is it not right to vote for it today?
Indeed, I am a little surprised that the Government have not found a way of adopting the motion. I realise that the last part relating to the invalid care allowance is rather difficult at this time, but, as was said in another place recently—some hon. Members were there—the sooner the nettle is grasped the better. The Government will have to grasp it.
Many of the points in the motion appeal to hon. Members on both sides of the House, across party divides. The sort of divisions that have arisen tonight are unnecessary. We should be finding a way forward. The right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) put forward a specific eight-point plan. The hon.

Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) put forward an action programme, as did the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton). People have been looking for specific steps to try to reach the common objectives that we all share.
We can argue about what resources are needed and how they should be funded, but everybody acknowledges that ideally greater resources are needed and that they should be directed to the right places. The Minister said that no details of the numbers and circumstances of carers are available. He referred to the general household survey later this year and the national survey of disabled people in 1988. Those two surveys, which are all very well, will give us global statistics, but they will not give us detailed local figures. They may show what resources are needed, but the question that then arises is where to allocate those resources, to whom and to answer what needs.
In Committee on the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Bill, the Minister said:
It would not be right to put a statutory obligation upon local authorities to assess carers' needs."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 5 February 1986; c. 68.]
It is necessary to assess carers' needs. New clause 10, eventually brought forward by the Government, contains the words:
the local authority shall … have regard to the ability of that other person"—
the carer—
to continue to provide such care on a regular basis."—[Official Report, 11 April 1986; Vol. 95, c. 523.]
If the local authority is to have regard to the ability of the carer, what is the difference between that and trying to quantify that regard in terms of an assessment of what is necessary to provide the support services? We are in danger of playing with words here, when in our heart of hearts we all know that we need to be able to quantify and specify the requirements in detail in order to ensure that resources are available to meet those needs.
The Minister made the point that promises should not go beyond the country's capacity to fulfil them. I was a little disturbed last night when in another place it was suggested that the pressure to pay the invalid care allowance—we all hope that the Government will be forced by the build up of pressure to do that—could restrict the money available for other purposes to help disabled people. I realise that all Governments have a limited pot of gold from which to obtain resources, but there is a general mood, not only in the House, but in the countries of these islands, that we require a shift of resources in the direction of those needing care.
One reason for that is that we have not done enough in the past. That is not a party political point. Many people who provide care have not been supported enough, in the past and they need more in the future.
Secondly, there is the bulge in the elderly population, which the hon. Member for Mid-Kent mentioned. The increasing elderly senile population will have an enormous impact over the next 20 years. We have seen that happening over the past decade, and the momentum is growing. The pressure is there. We are not yet getting our act together to meet that need. Therefore, we must get the resources together to ensure that we are not caught out.
The position of the elderly and mentally infirm is very serious. They have requirements that carers cannot hope to contain within the community unless they get the range of support services that other hon. Members have detailed. I shall not repeat them now.
As the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) said, we need a survey of needs in particular localities. That comes back to the question of specific assessment. We cannot get away from it. Therefore, I hope that the Minister can give an assurance that when the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Bill, which is critical to what we are discussing tonight, passes through another place, as I expect it will, probably unamended, the Government will find the necessary resources to ensure that it is implemented at an early date. I realise that the local authority clauses cannot be implemented in this financial year because of the constraints on local authorities. However, I hope that the Government will give a firm undertaking that the resources will be available to meet the needs of carers from the beginning of the next financial year onwards. I hope that will be a token of the Government's determination to do what is necessary to help carers.

Mrs. Anna McCurley: There seems to have been a little fuss from the Opposition about the fact that some Conservative Members supported an early-day motion which approximates to their motion this evening. I believe that there was no harm in supporting the idea, but a little realism has been injected by the Government in the amendment.
I should like to speak about the elderly in Scotland. What we have been talking about tonight came home visibly to me when I recently visited Killallan house, in Houston, in my constituency, where a 97–year-old was celebrating her birthday and her 77–year-old son and daughter were visiting her. They were the fortunate ones. Most people in that position are still at home without help.
The problem of elderly carers with even more elderly parents or dependants is becoming more acute. Those in the greatest need are now those who are either unable or unwilling to articulate their problem because they do not want to be a burden on society. Many of them come from a generation which believes that love and duty are not bound up with money. Sometimes I believe that the Opposition do not understand that, no matter how little people are paid, they are still willing to do the work.
There is the problem of the elderly looking after the aged. However, for many younger carers there is the problem of loss of income combined with the high cost of the much needed services such as additional laundry, additional heating and lighting, aids for incontinence and special diets.
There are roughly 125,000 carers in Scotland. They are mostly women who undoubtedly have had a poorer deal than men. Their job will never get better or easier. Age, decline and ultimate loss are the end products of their hard work. It is estimated that the savings to the Scottish budget through the hard and unpaid work of carers is about £660 million per annum.
However, the Government have demonstrated their concern in Scotland. They have provided additional resources for keeping people within their own homes, with carers in mind. The emphasis is undoubtedly on care in the community and the SHAPE priorities and SHARE allocation of the Health Service shows that clearly.

Additional funds have been provided and recently the Minister responsible for health in Scotland gave an additional £250,000 to help the elderly in their homes.
We are very responsive in Scotland to voluntary bodies such as Age Concern when they suggest projects. One project did a survey of dementia sufferers and their carers in Glasgow. We responded very swiftly and provided additional finance.
The benefits which are available must be taken up. It is important for those who are entitled to benefits to ensure that they get what they deserve. Admittedly, at present the benefit system is a tangled forest and there are many outstanding inequities, but we are steering a path through it. Age, sex and marital status can exclude one from benefits and we are well aware that married women are excluded from the invalid care allowance. That must ultimately change. Also, divorced women are not eligible if they are receiving maintenance. That seems unduly harsh.
I hope that the Government are willing to continue to move towards a more equitable position, not through the force of the courts but by humane evolution of the system. Of course, the cost implications are huge and we cannot do it overnight. However, it is important that we aim to get things right now. In the next decade the number of over-75s will increase by 33 per cent. That is a worrying figure for a society whose resources are created by fewer and fewer people. Seventeen per cent. of the Scottish population is now of pensionable age. The number will increase slightly between now and 2011, but the number of over-75s will have increased by 19 per cent. and the over-85s by 80 per cent.
It is interesting that 35 per cent. of all Scottish households have an old-age pensioner, but 31 per cent. of our pensioners live on their own. Therefore, additional resources need to be put into the system. Of the female carers in Scotland, 42 per cent. are more than 60 years old and 70 per cent. are more than 50 years old. The average age of a carer in Scotland is 61. That is a time in life when one needs a little help for oneself and should not be in a position where one has to use mental and physical energy to such a great extent. Those people do it willingly, voluntarily and out of love.
I add my congratulations to those which have already been given to the voluntary services for their help. The National Council for Carers and their Elderly Dependants is grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) for all the help that she gives it. Without that body the services would be under a severe constraint. My contact with the council has been quite frequent recently and I have found it a magnificent body.
Many other agencies are helping to keep carers happy and to prepare the elderly for old age. I must mention the Women's Royal Voluntary Service because it is the true embodiment of a voluntary organisation. It husbands its resources very well and it is involved in direct care with very little administration. Many of the voluntary organisations would do well to take the WRVS as their example. I also congratulate Age Concern, Crossroads and the other remarkable voluntary bodies.
The Government are showing greater willingness to participate in research and in funding this very important area. I hope that we can continue to help before it is too late.

Mr. Allen McKay: We in the House and people outside are now about to book holidays, if they are not already booked. We are saying that we will put our household pets in places where they will be looked after or we will get friends to look after them. A carer of people is not in that happy position. A carer cannot do that. Why should carers be in that position?
We blithely take such people for granted. The Minister took them for granted when he said that the resources were not available. He said that the resources were not available in the social services departments. There is much understanding among hon. Members about the need to help carers. We must together try to find the money to achieve our objective. We can do it. Local authorities have capital expenditure tied up. For heaven's sake, let them release that capital expenditure and let it be spent on things that it should be spent on such as caring for the carers.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: I am pleased that there is consensus about what needs to be done, but there is no consensus about the availability of cash. That is where the rub lies. There are 1¼ million people in this country who are looking after severely disabled relatives. Although they may be looking after their severely disabled relatives by choice, that is no reason for exploiting them, yet they are being exploited.
The hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) said that it is all right if one signs cheques using somebody else's cheque book, but who is signing the cheque for £120 a week that goes to many owners of private nursing homes? This gives rise to the kind of headline that appeared earlier this week in the Liverpool Echo, which, together with the "World in Action" team, has done a great service by pointing out that many of the cheques for £120 a week are wasted because that money is swelling the profits of the owners of private residential nursing homes who are not providing proper food and conditions for the people in their care. I have already put down three parliamentary questions about residential homes, including Millvale House in my constituency.
I hope that the Minister for Social Security will agree to hold an independent inquiry into this matter. If the Government really care for those who are in private nursing homes, they should inquire into the cost of caring for people in those homes. They should provide more help for the real carers—relatives who provide care, not for profit, but for love.

Ms. Harriet Harman: The desperate urgency of the case for carers is obvious to the carers themselves and to anyone who knows a carer. At the very least, caring for an elderly or a disabled person can mean the loss of social life, job prospects and income, but for many carers it also means emotional and physical breakdown, exhaustion and isolation.
I want to mention the circumstances of one woman to whom I talked in her own home last week. For many years Mary looked after her elderly mother until she died at the age of 84 after a long, depressive illness. Three years later, when Mary was only 48, her husband suffered a massive

stroke which left him with pre-senile dementia. It was then that, in practice, Mary lost the husband whom she loved dearly.
It is 12 years since Mary's husband had his stroke, years which have seen her life devastated. She has become totally isolated. She had to give up her job to look after him—a job she desperately misses, not only for the money, but because she enjoyed her work. She has lost contact with her friends. She cannot go out to see them because she has to stay in to look after her husband. When she last invited friends to her home her husband stripped off in front of them, so she feels that she can no longer invite them to her home. Her relationships with her children and the rest of her family have also broken down. Her children find that it is less easy to travel to see her, because they have small children, and she cannot travel to see them because she has to look after her husband.
Mary always gets up before her husband to have her breakfast, because as soon as he is awake she is too busy responding to his demands to find time to eat. She finds it impossible to eat at the same table as her husband, anyway, because he stuffs his food into his mouth so forcibly that he nearly always vomits over his food. He is doubly incontinent. She finds faeces smeared everywhere in the house—up the banisters and up the walls. She feels under strain 24 hours a day. On the morning that I met her she had awoken to find that her husband had disappeared. She spent anxious hours searching for him, with the help of the police.
In those 12 years of caring for her husband, the strain and isolation have broken both her physical and her mental health, but because her husband is doubly incontinent she finds it difficult to get respite care, even in an emergency. She had to be taken into hospital for a cancer operation, but even then she could not get respite care. Mary is one of the many carers whose caring has broken her. Because of the struggle and the strain, these carers feel as though they no longer have the capacity to care, yet they have no choice but to continue.
Mary has never been assessed as to her capacity to care. She has never been offered day or night sitting services, or a home help. She says that she cannot stand it any more. She wants to get her husband into residential care, but she will have to go on looking after him because of the low level of services where she lives.
Mary's case is heartbreaking in the extreme, but it is not unusual. It is relatively typical of the pattern of caring. It is not just part of her life; it is a series of caring roles that have taken over her life. They take up the 24 hours of the day, the seven days of the week, and the 52 weeks of the year. As both she and her husband are not earning, she has financial problems. Her case is also typical of the social isolation that is caused, of the breakdown of family relationships and of mental strain. Carers are six times more likely than anybody else to suffer a mental breakdown.
Mary lives in the London borough of Merton. It is a Conservative-controlled borough that takes pride in its low level of spending on social services. That means that it takes pride in an appallingly low level of services. Although there are carers in all parts of the country, the services that are available to support them in their role differ drastically. According to the Minister, there is a network of professional carers and the only problem is coordination, but whether one gets any help at all depends not upon one's needs but upon where one lives. There is


no respite care for those looking after younger, physically disabled people if one is a carer in Conservative Kent or Conservative Richmond. In neither of those counties, unfortunately, is there one of the excellent Crossroads care attendance schemes.

Mr. Rowe: That is untrue.

Ms. Harman: I stand by the fact that no respite care is provided by the county of Kent for those looking after younger, physically disabled people. Many counties under Tory control provide less than half the number of home helps that are set down in the Government's minimum guideline.
The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) referred to the need for more home helps. Is he unaware of the fact that councils that are under Tory control are cutting back on home helps and that the increase in the home help service that the Minster praised is because Labour-controlled councils, in the teeth of Government opposition, have tried to increase their provision? The Liberal-controlled Isle of Wight is such a care less council that it provides less than one third of the Government's minimum guideline for home helps.

Mr. Alton: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms. Harman: It is an irony that the Government praise as responsible and exemplary those Liberal and Tory councils which leave carers to crack up behind closed doors. The Government condemn Labour councils which try to improve services in order to ease the burden on carers. The Government brand them as irresponsible and profligate. What an irony that the Government are discouraging councils which are trying to improve and increase services. The statement in the Government's amendment to our motion, that they intend to continue to improve the level of support for statutory agencies, is not true. In fact, last year council social services spending increased by only 0·5 per cent. because of Government restrictions, although the Department of the Environment acknowledges that a 2·5 per cent. increase is needed just to maintain existing services for the growing number of elderly people.
Nor is it true, as the Government say in their amendment, that they are continuing to improve the level of support to voluntary agencies. As a result of local government spending restrictions, voluntary organisations have seen their council grants cut by over a quarter. Instead, the Government have spawned a chaotic range of schemes for voluntary organisations, many of which involve services being provided by short-term Manpower Services Commission trainees on as little as 1·70 an hour. Carers deserve better than a disjointed service by an ever-changing stream of conscripts from the dole queue.
Instead of mealy-mouthed platitudes, the Government should embark upon a national strategy for ensuring comprehensive provision of services at local level. The Minister said nothing about that in his speech. He referred only to seminars. The Government should be taking the initiative to recognise the growing needs of a growing army of carers.
As well as the financial measures which my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) outlined, the Government should encourage the development of

local services which ensure that there is early identification of carers and an assessment of their capacity to care. The Government should also provide sufficient residential provision to ensure that nobody has to care when that is beyond her or his capacity. Not all carers want to be voluntary carers. Some of them are conscripted into caring because there is no alternative. Carers need information and advice about help. They need the continuing backup of key workers to help them to fight their way through the maze of different agencies with which they have to deal. Obviously, we would like to see care attendant schemes in all parts of the country. The Government must encourage and co-ordinate group practice and make sure that the resources are there to back it up.
Forty seven Conservative Back Benchers have already signalled their support for this motion by signing early-day motion 299, which stands in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley). That motion is identical to the motion that we are debating. The Government amendment totally contradicts early-day motion 299, and Conservatives who signed that motion must vote for this motion and against the Government. If they do not, they will be revealing themselves as dishonest and as hypocrites, and carers in their constituencies will be saddened to know that the support they thought they had from their Members of Parliament is worthless because they were not prepared to defend the interests of those carers whom they said they represented.

The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): The one thing on which all hon. Members are united is the importance of the subject that we have been debating for over two hours. In some ways, the time has been too short for such an important subject. In the past, the people about whom we have been talking have had inadequate recognition, perhaps from hon. Members on both sides of the House. Such people are worthy not only of the admiration that has been expressed by every hon. Member who has spoken, but of the support of the whole community for what they do.
Apart from the occasional rude remarks that have been made about the Government and the odd sour note that has crept in, I found the debate immensely encouraging. I suspect that five, or certainly 10, years ago such a debate would not have taken place, because nobody would have thought the subject warranted even two or three hours of the time of the House. That is a sign of a great and welcome increase in public and political awareness of the problems of carers.
I have no doubt that part of the trigger for today's debate was the Advocate General's opinion, issued on Tuesday of last week. However, that would not have triggered off the debate if there had not been a fundamental interest in the subject. That interest represents an important gain for our political discussion and for a solution to the problems of the disabled and those associated with them. I am happy to acknowledge that, because I can claim something that was implicit in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health who opened the debate. While the Government can in no sense claim, nor would we seek to claim, that it is primarily our own achievement, we have contributed to that awareness by the policies and initiatives that we have taken in the past four or five years.
When the first results of the DHSS social work service—now the social services inspectorate—project on informal carers were discussed at a major seminar at Friend's House in London, I was in the job now carried out by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney). I remember making the opening speech at that conference which had been instituted to discuss the project. Those taking part included representatives from local authorities, health authorities, voluntary organisations and others. The conference sought to bring to their attention the need to think more about the problems of carers. A good deal has stemmed from that work, carried out only three or four years ago, and it is being built upon.
I know that the Opposition regard £10·5 million as a piffling sum, but we are contributing with our helping the community to care programme. That programme has its bits and pieces. Some are large, others are small, but they are all important in their way in developing further the recognition and awareness of this problem. Pilot projects are taking place in three local authority areas.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) spoke about the information and advice available to carers. The King's Fund work seeks to improve that information and advice. I know that people have occasionally rubbished such things and asked "What is information and advice?" In my experience both in this area and in a narrower way in social security, the improvement of information and advice fulfils a major need and ensures that people know where to go to get the help either in cash or in care that they need. I make no apology for those projects, because they play an important part in what we are all seeking to do.
My right hon. Friend touched on the development of joint finance and joint planning. I should like to join in the tributes that have been paid to many of the voluntary organisations. There has been a significant expansion of the amount of support given to those voluntary organisations by the Government to enable them to expand their work, to which the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) rightly paid tribute.
I have looked up the amount of grant aid paid to a number of those organisations, and it confirms my own recollection of what has taken place during the time that I have been in the Department. Broadly speaking, Crossroads and the Associations of Carers are getting three time the amount of grant aid now that they were getting just a few years ago. The Association of Carers was not receiving any grant aid when this Government took office, because at that time the association did not exist. We have not contributed to the association as much as it would like, but we have contributed significantly to the development of its important work. I hope that we shall be able to continue to do so and to develop financing methods that will assist still further its steady development and give it the greater security that it would undoubtedly like.
I should like to pay tribute to the hon. Member who made the most thoughtful speech in the debate—I hope that I am not offending any other hon. Member by saying that—my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price), who has considerable knowledge and a long involvement in these matters. It gave the debate the balance that it had previously lacked, because of some of the words uttered by the hon. Member for Oldham, West. I was struck by the point that I think my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh took from Judith Oliver of the Association of Carers about the tendency for local

authorities and other service providers sometimes to assume too easily that if there is a carer there is no need for services. However, very often the opposite is true. Governments cannot change those attitudes by diktat from the centre, but they can help to change them over a period, and this Government have already contributed to that aim.
Much of the debate has focused on the argument about the invalid care allowance. I acknowledge the strength of feeling and the interest that exists on both sides of the House about that matter. We have heard quoted some huge figures of carers. Whether or not we quarrel with the size of those figures or the sums involved, the House should at least not run away with the idea that the extension of invalid care allowance to married women is a solution to the sort of problem that we are debating. At most, 70,000 of those millions of carers, about whom the hon. Member for Oldham, West spoke, would stand to gain. They would certainly not see this as a solution to their problems or as an alternative to the sort of services that have been spoken about so tellingly in the debate. For example, it must be recognised that an elderly carer would not gain at all from the extension of the invalid care allowance because, as part of her husband's pension, she already receives exactly the same amount of money that she would receive by way of invalid care allowance. If she were to receive invalid care allowance, the husband's benefit would be cut by a corresponding amount.
I ask people not to exaggerate the extent to which invalid care allowance presents a solution to this important issue, nor to exaggerate what would be achieved by what they are urging the Government to do. As the amendment says, we shall consider and report to the House on any judgment that the European Court may make in due course. Both the motion and the amendment in their different ways show the dilemma posed by many different needs. What they have in common is that they unequivocally recognise the needs of carers and the progress that has been made. However, much more needs to be done. The amendment invites the House to proceed in a considered and responsible way.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 170, Noes 272.

Division No. 167]
[7.00 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Callaghan, Rt Hon J.


Alton, David
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)


Anderson, Donald
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Canavan, Dennis


Ashdown, Paddy
Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Cartwright, John


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Barnett, Guy
Clay, Robert


Barron, Kevin
Clelland, David Gordon


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Bell, Stuart
Coleman, Donald


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Conlan, Bernard


Bermingham, Gerald
Cook, Frank (Stockton North)


Bidwell, Sydney
Corbett, Robin


Blair, Anthony
Corbyn, Jeremy


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)


Boyes, Roland
Craigen, J. M.


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Crowther, Stan


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Deakins, Eric


Buchan, Norman
Dixon, Donald


Caborn, Richard
Dobson, Frank






Dormand, Jack
Martin, Michael


Dubs, Alfred
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Duffy, A. E. P.
Maynard, Miss Joan


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Meacher, Michael


Eadie, Alex
Michie, William


Eastham, Ken
Mikardo, Ian


Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Ewing, Harry
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Faulds, Andrew
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Nellist, David


Flannery, Martin
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
O'Brien, William


Forrester, John
O'Neill, Martin


Foster, Derek
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Foulkes, George
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Park, George


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Parry, Robert


Freud, Clement
Pavitt, Laurie


George, Bruce
Pendry, Tom


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Pike, Peter


Godman, Dr Norman
Prescott, John


Golding, John
Radice, Giles


Gould, Bryan
Randall, Stuart


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Raynsford, Nick


Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Hardy, Peter
Richardson, Ms Jo


Harman, Ms Harriet
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Robertson, George


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Haynes, Frank
Rogers, Allan


Heffer, Eric S.
Rooker, J. W.


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Ryman, John


Home Robertson, John
Sedgemore, Brian


Howells, Geraint
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Hoyle, Douglas
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham)
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Skinner, Dennis


Janner, Hon Greville
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)


John, Brynmor
Snape, Peter


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Soley, Clive


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Spearing, Nigel


Lambie, David
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Lamond, James
Straw, Jack


Leadbitter, Ted
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Leighton, Ronald
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Tinn, James


Litherland, Robert
Torney, Tom


Livsey, Richard
Wareing, Robert


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Weetch, Ken


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Wigley, Dafydd


McCartney, Hugh
Williams, Rt Hon A.


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Wilson, Gordon


McKelvey, William
Woodall, Alec


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Wrigglesworth, Ian


McTaggart, Robert
Young, David (Bolton SE)


McWilliam, John



Madden, Max
Tellers for the Ayes:


Marek, Dr John
Mr. Ray Powell and


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Mr. Mark Fisher.


NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Biggs-Davison, Sir John


Alexander, Richard
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Body, Sir Richard


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Amess, David
Bottomley, Peter


Ancram, Michael
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Ashby, David
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Aspinwall, Jack
Boyson, Dr Rhodes


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Baldry, Tony
Bright, Graham


Bellingham, Henry
Brinton, Tim


Bendall, Vivian
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon


Benyon, William
Brooke, Hon Peter


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)





Bruinvels, Peter
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)


Buck, Sir Antony
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Budgen, Nick
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Bulmer, Esmond
Irving, Charles


Butcher, John
Jackson, Robert


Butterfill, John
Jessel, Toby


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Carttiss, Michael
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Cash, William
Key, Robert


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
King, Rt Hon Tom


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Latham, Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Lawrence, Ivan


Chope, Christopher
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Churchill, W. S.
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Lester, Jim


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Lightbown, David


Clegg, Sir Walter
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)


Colvin, Michael
Lord, Michael


Cope, John
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Cormack, Patrick
Lyell, Nicholas


Couchman, James
McCrindle, Robert


Cranborne, Viscount
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Critchley, Julian
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Crouch, David
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Dickens, Geoffrey
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Dorrell, Stephen
Maclean, David John


Dover, Den
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Dunn, Robert
Major, John


Eggar, Tim
Malins, Humfrey


Emery, Sir Peter
Malone, Gerald


Evennett, David
Maples, John


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Marland, Paul


Farr, Sir John
Marlow, Antony


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Fletcher, Alexander
Mates, Michael


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mather, Carol


Forman, Nigel
Maude, Hon Francis


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Forth, Eric
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Franks, Cecil
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Freeman, Roger
Mellor, David


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Merchant, Piers


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Miscampbell, Norman


Goodlad, Alastair
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Gorst, John
Monro, Sir Hector


Gow, Ian
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Grant, Sir Anthony
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Griffiths, Sir Eldon
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Ground, Patrick
Moynihan, Hon C.


Grylls, Michael
Mudd, David


Gummer, Rt Hon John S
Murphy, Christopher


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Neale, Gerrard


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Needham, Richard


Hampson, Dr Keith
Neubert, Michael


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Newton, Tony


Harris, David
Nicholls, Patrick


Harvey, Robert
Norris, Steven


Haselhurst, Alan
Onslow, Cranley


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hayes, J.
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney
Osborn, Sir John


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Ottaway, Richard


Henderson, Barry
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Hind, Kenneth
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Hirst, Michael
Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abgdn)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Pawsey, James


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Pollock, Alexander


Hordern, Sir Peter
Portillo, Michael


Howard, Michael
Powell, William (Corby)


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Powley, John


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg






Price, Sir David
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Proctor, K. Harvey
Sumberg, David


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Raffan, Keith
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Rathbone, Tim
Temple-Morris, Peter


Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
Terlezki, Stefan


Rhodes James, Robert
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Thornton, Malcolm


Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Thurnham, Peter


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Roe, Mrs Marion
Trippier, David


Rost, Peter
Twinn, Dr Ian


Rowe, Andrew
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Ryder, Richard
Waddington, David


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Waldegrave, Hon William


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Walden, George


Sayeed, Jonathan
Waller, Gary


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Walters, Dennis


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Ward, John


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Warren, Kenneth


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Watts, John


Shersby, Michael
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Wheeler, John


Speed, Keith
Whitfield, John


Speller, Tony
Whitney, Raymond


Spencer, Derek
Wilkinson, John


Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wolfson, Mark


Squire, Robin
Wood, Timothy


Stanbrook, Ivor
Woodcock, Michael


Stanley, Rt Hon John
Yeo, Tim


Stern, Michael
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)



Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Tellers for the Noes:


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Mr. Tony Durant and


Stokes, John
Mr. Peter Lloyd.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 33 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House, noting that there are a substantial number of people from the age of seven to 70 years caring for disabled and elderly relatives at home, often for many years, pays the warmest possible tribute to these carers; and further noting the research which shows that carers themselves often suffer from mental and physical illness, social isolation and disadvantage, recognises the action already taken by the Government to improve their position, especially in view of the undoubted savings to public funds which flow from their commitment; and in particular welcomes the Government's intentions, in line with its stated policies on care in the community and the availability of resources, that: (a) adequate respite care, both at home and in short-stay facilities, be assured by continuing improvement in the level of support given to statutory and voluntary agencies, (b) a flexible system of appropriate support such as home helps and home nursing be available at times when the carer needs them and (c) any judgement which may be made by the European Court relating to the invalid care allowance introduced by the Labour Government in 1976, be carefully considered by the Government and made the subject of a report to the House.

County of South Glamorgan (Taff Crossing) Bill (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. James Callaghan: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I seek the indulgence of the House to make my maiden speech on a private Bill.
The purpose of the Bill, which is promoted by the county council of the county of South Glamorgan, is to enable the county council to construct a road crossing of the tidal estuary of the river Taff. The interests of those hon. Members who represent Cardiff are touched by the Bill, as is the interest of the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Sir R. Gower). As the river crossing that is the subject of the Bill is in my constituency, they have kindly allowed me to sponsor the Bill, although they will put their own gloss on it and perhaps add their own reservations. However, I think that there is no basic difference between us in our endeavour to secure a Second Reading.
I should like to begin by describing the area that the Bill touches. We are discussing not an area of sylvan beauty or an untouched coastline that we are seeking to preserve for the national heritage, but one of the most rundown industrial areas in south Wales, an area which was created when the coal traffic was at its height but which, with the decline of the coal traffic, has itself declined and become an industrial backwater where live some of my constituents, several thousand of them, who are in an area of deprivation. We are concerned in this matter to improve the environment in which they live. In so doing we have run up against problems that I will describe and try to treat fairly because I hope, if I can, to satisfy the objections of those who object.
I want those who are thinking of objecting to recognise that this area comprises very old, poor housing, a rundown industrial backwater with a road transport depot at one side and an oil storage depot at the other; the dry docks and the wet docks are there, and the mud flats that lead to them have to be constantly dredged; and unemployment in the area is the highest in the city of Cardiff. I should not like any Member to be under the impression that the vandals of Glamorgan county council are attempting to spoil some part of our national heritage. That would be far from the truth.
The area is being improved, and the Bill is part of the effort to improve it, although the proposal that the House is being asked to approve is the building of a crossing from Cardiff to Penarth across the Taff estuary. Here the difference arises. The county council is proposing a barrage. Those who oppose it for good reasons would prefer a bridge. There may not seem to be much between the two, but I will explain why the county council would prefer to build a barrage.
I have already said that this is an area with the fewest amenities in the city of Cardiff. It is an area outside the entrance to the docks that has been a great handicap to us in the past. It comprises mud flats that have to be dredged constantly. The rise and fall of the river Severn, as I think is well known, at this point are the highest and lowest in the world, with the exception of the Bay of Fundy in Nova Scotia. Having said that, I dare say that I will get a number


of letters telling me of other places that have higher rises or lower falls. In this case, it is 40 ft. When the tide goes out, it leaves a tremendous area of mud flats, and the Cardiff docks entrance has to be kept open constantly.
In its proposal for completing the road system from one side to the other, the council had what it thought was the excellent idea of improving the amenities of those who live in the area by building a barrage that would hold the water level steady and would disguise the ugliness, which is how some people think of the mud flats. There are, I know, people in Essex who believe that the mud flats there are the most beautiful things in the world. I can only say that my constituents, alas, do not have that taste. They wanted to see the mud flats disguised, and they were very happy with the county council's proposal.
The council wants to take a small area of the mud flats closest to the houses where my constituents live. This is an area on which feed a great many important birds. They go there to feed every winter. I am told that they feed on invertebrates. If they choose, they can also have an excellent diet of rusty bicycles, old bedsteads and sundry other rubbish. Not surprisingly, some of my constituents—though not all—are anxious that this should be removed. A barrage would be one way of removing it.
A public exhibition was put on in the area concerned which 700 people visited. Many were enthusiastic. A large number were in favour and there were some objectors, but I am happy to say that this is the reverse of the normal type of Bill where the objections usually come from the residents. In this case, the residents are in favour and those who live outside—if I were in an unkind mood, I would say those who live in much better areas—are opposed to the Bill. We must take the matter seriously, and later I shall suggest what I think should be done. We must find a balance.
We fell foul of the sites of special scientific interest and conservation groups generally, including the Nature Conservancy Council, all of whom have registered objections. I do not wish to criticise those groups which do much to preserve our heritage. If I may speak of my bona fides, I have been a member of the International Council for Bird Preservation for many years. Yesterday I checked with my bank that my subscription was fully paid, otherwise I might have received a request to pay it.
The county council wishes to enclose a small area of a much bigger area which stretches roughly from the Severn bridge—an area we call the English Stone—through the Welsh Grounds, lying in the middle of the Severn estuary, to the English and Welsh Stone at the bottom. It is a vast area of 25,000 acres or more. The county council proposes to enclose less than 1 per cent. of the total area in order to improve my constituents' amenities. For that reason, I am asking the House to allow the Bill to go to a Committee so that it can examine what can be done to meet the needs of those groups.
A large number of birds roost and feed there, partly, no doubt, because of the nature of the mud flats. Naturally, the mud flats are closest to the city where my constituents live. They are the last to be flooded, and the tide leaves them first. There are also many scavenging gulls on the refuse of the city which pours out. The area has been an eyesore for as long as I have represented this part of Cardiff. It is unpleasant for the residents, and offputting for industry and commerce.
The county council, knowing that there would be claims that its proposals would have an impact on bird life, commissioned a study on the effects. Clearly there will be a loss of feeding ground, and no one can disagree with that. The study, conducted at University College, Cardiff, counted a peak of 1,500 redshanks feeding at low tide, 8,000 dunlin, 450 shelduck and others.
In my innocence, I assume that if the birds are shut out of this tiny area, they will find somewhere else on the huge expanse between the English Stone and the Welsh Stone. However, I am told that, because the area is the last to be flooded, it is where the birds much prefer to be, and that we would perhaps rob them of a little of their feeding ground. The county council tried to handle that, and proposed to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds that it would construct an artificial mud bank of equal size surrounded by ditches so that it would be there in perpetuity, adjoining the area to be shut off. In that way the birds may continue to feed on an area of equivalent size. I am not making fun of the matter, but that was the type of problem that the county council set out to meet.
I notice that some hon. Members who signed the objection are present. I believe that the RSPB has been unreasonable. It refused to meet the county council to discuss the matter fully, and to see whether the council's idea of a substitute mud bank would meet the objections. The RSPB said, "We are losing so much land for all sorts of good purposes that as a matter of principle we refuse to allow any more to go. Therefore, we must stand on our rights and object to the Bill." If that happens, the Bill will not receive a Second Reading, and that would be entirely wrong. Obviously, we must look after the interests of and seek to conserve our natural heritage, but if the choice is between 1,500 redshanks and 5,000 constituents who live in the worst possible conditions in south Cardiff, we must achieve a balance, and I know where that balance should be struck.
If the RSPB will meet the county council and discuss the matter, every effort will be made before anything is done to construct some alternative that would not destroy even one acre of the birds' natural feeding grounds.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the RSPB—I am so advised by the Wales officer of the RSPB—has met the county council, placed all its objections before the council and remains of the view that the objections are not met by the proposals in the Bill?

Mr. Callaghan: That is why the objection is continuing.

Mr. Carlile: The county council and the RSPB met.

Mr. Callaghan: Whether they met or not—

Mr. Carlile: The right hon. Gentleman said that they had not met.

Mr. Callaghan: I am not sure whether they met. There was certainly correspondence between them if that counts as a meeting. Some people from the RSPB visited me, and none of them lives in the area about which we are talking. They live in much more salubrious areas. I am anxious that my people should have as good a life as those who came to see me, and that that should not be denied them. That is why I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
The hon. and learned Gentleman may be right, but no one could have made greater efforts than the county


council. The society told me that it was standing on principle and that there could be no compromise because enough has been lost. If a society does that, obviously there can be no agreement, whether or not it met the county council. The House must judge between the two groups and see where it thinks the balance of advantage lies.
I promised to put one further matter to the House. As I explained, the channel is constantly subject to dredging. British Dredging Aggregates, a company in my constituency, operates from a wharf on the river Taff which will be cut off from the sea if the barrage is built. It is the company's most profitable wharf. The company asked me to tell the House that
it is happy to support the Scheme at this stage but that must be subject to the essential requirement that adequate and proper compensation is made to BDA for the loss of a vital part of its undertaking. Discussions are currently proceeding with the Local Authority and it is hoped that adequate compensation will be agreed.
The House need not deny the Bill a Second Reading on those grounds. Although the company will be subject to some difficulty, it believes that it can reach an agreement with the county council.
I shall be glad to answer any questions. If the RSPB has met the county council, I gladly withdraw what I said. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will explain to me whether the society is willing to depart from its attitude that there can be no compromise on the matter.

Mr. Carlile: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that a meeting took place between officers of the RSPB, including Mr. Lovegrove, the Wales officer who runs the RSPB in Wales, and county council officials, including the chief environmental officer and the chief solicitor. The RSPB is perfectly prepared to listen to any proposal which the county council puts to it.
The right hon. Gentleman has been fair and most helpful, but could he help me with other important factors? What have been the consultation costs of the barrage scheme? What is the estimated cost of the barrage scheme? For the aid of a comparison, what would be the cost of a bridge?

Mr. Callaghan: I accept that the officers of the RSPB met council officials. I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman has disposed of my question. If the RSPB is not willing to compromise, what is the consequence of it listening to the county council?
The cost of a high-level bridge—it is all part of a larger scheme and should be put in that context—would be £38 million. The cost of a low-level bridge on piers would be £36 million. The cost of the barrage would be £40,600,000. The barrage would cost £2 million more than a high-level bridge and £4 million more than a low-level bridge. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will not tell my constituents of south Cardiff, who have lived in these conditions for 40 years or more, that £4 million should stand between them and the barrage scheme. If that is the basis of the hon. and learned Gentleman's objections, I must tell him that that is not the sort of equation that my constituents would make. They would be astonished if the hon. and learned Gentleman, as a member of the Liberal party, were to make such an equation.

Mr. Peter Hardy: My right hon. Friend is making a powerful case on behalf of his constituents.

I wish to remind the House that I am a member of the RSPB council, although I have not been involved in this matter. I do not live in one of the salubrious areas referred to by my right hon. Friend; I live in south Yorkshire. if my right hon. Friend secures the Second Reading—I think he is confident of doing so—I hope he can assure us that that will not provide the county council with any reason to believe that it does not need to enter into further discussions with the RSPB. Such discussions are necessary, not least because the RSPB has assured me that it does not, in principle, object to the crossing.

Mr. Callaghan: My hon. Friend is correct. The RSPB has stated consistently that it does not object to the crossing, but does object to the barrage. The RSPB has made it absolutely clear that it favours the building of a bridge.
I can give my hon. Friend an assurance, after many years of contact with the councillors of the county council, that it is their determination and intention—I hope that no one will take exception if I say it is a Labour county council, as I do not wish to put off anyone who is ready to support the Bill—to improve the amenities of the area. Whatever the politics, officials who are not politically minded have shown every desire to meet the RSPB with the intention of achieving a compromise and to find some way of ensuring that the scheme goes through.
I received a letter from the council which informed me that it does not intend to proceed with the construction of the barrage until replacement mud flats have been established. I hope that that assures my hon. Friend and the RSPB. I support the work of the RSPB and I hope that its good work will continue.
It would be a great disservice to people who are deprived and who are living in an area of high unemployment and whose living conditions are not satisfactory if they could not have the improvement in their amenities which this proposed construction would effect.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: It is important to stress that there is no lack of enthusiasm for the peripheral distributor road around south Cardiff and for the Taff crossing which is the subject of the Bill. I regard these developments as positive features—indeed, they are one of many features which we can gloriously hold up which seek to attract people to relocate in Cardiff. There have been some local reservations about the line of the road, and, as the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) referred to, the effect on British Dredging Aggregates Limited. Those are not points which I need to discuss in detail as they have been dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman. We are debating the nature of the crossing and whether it should be a barrage. The barrage is the centre of no small controversy both in and outside Cardiff. It is important to emphasise that, from all the representations I have received, there is no objection in principle to this new crossing of the Taff.
When the Bill was read the First time I found it necessary to shout "object" in company with my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle) and to add my signature to the blocking motion which appears on the Order Paper. I knew that there were significant local worries about the environmental implications of the Bill. I did not feel it was right that it should receive a formal


First Reading and receive a relatively brief consideration by the Unopposed Bills Committee. I had received representations and petitions from constituents who sought my help as well as from local and national groups worried about the environment. I felt those reservations should be considered.
On the day following the First Reading, no fewer than six petitions were received against the Bill. One petition came from ARC (Western) Limited and ARC-Powell Duffryn Limited. The others were from the Cardiff Naturalists' Society, the Severn-Estuary Conservation Group, the Glamorgan Trust for Nature Conservation, the RSPB and British Dredging Aggregates Ltd. That meant that, unless the petitions were withdrawn, the Bill would automatically go to the Opposed Bills Committee.
The week following the First Reading I received an assurance from South Glamorgan county council that it would enter into negotiations with the petitioners in an attempt to reach agreement with them to withdraw their petitions. I withdrew my objection to facilitate and encourage those negotiations. I did not want any excuses for the negotiations not to be pursued full-heartedly, nor did I want it to be claimed that the objections to the Bill were making the negotiations pointless.
I regret that the political representatives of South Glamorgan county council reacted with great arrogance when the Bill was read the First time. They said that all the environmental arguments had already been fully considered by the council and dealt with. Accordingly they said that this House should not bother to hear those arguments for itself. I am sure all right hon. and hon. Members would utterly reject that arrogant and flawed contention. What citizen is too unimportant that his point of view should not be heard by this House? The councils' audacious pretension has been further flawed.
South Glamorgan county council had sought to evaluate the environmental implications and effects. Dr. Peter Ferns of University College, Cardiff, was commissioned to advise the council on these aspects. In turn the South Glamorgan county council offered to carry out the compensatory works recommended by Dr. Ferns—a recognition of the environmental effects claimed by the objectors. However, Dr. Ferns has stated that South Glamorgan county council has not subsequently carried out any work to determine if his proposals are feasible.
The objectors claim that in negotiations with South Glamorgan county council, before and after the First Reading of the Bill, the representatives of the council have, at best, received submissions with a polite "thank you, but no thank you".
The impression has been conveyed that the council is determined to have the barrage, come what may. It is, therefore, only fair to mention that I have had reports from South Glamorgan county council, from its side of the table, to the effect that perhaps not all of the objectors have been fully prepared to work towards an agreed solution to the problem. But inevitably such recriminations will flow from negotiations which both sides admit have failed.
The county council's case for the barrage can easily be seen. It would provide a constant ponding of the water back up the river Taff to where the river runs adjacent to the city centre. It would be a significant cosmetic improvement in itself, and it would also be an improvement for those who abhor mud or for those other

all too common features of urban vandalism, the rivers and their banks. We could all give endless lists of those things that are dumped into or alongside rivers by unthinking people.
It is envisaged that a wide range of water sports, most obviously rowing and other small boat racing, could be developed on the ponded water to the clear advantage of those who want to participate or to be spectators. However, cosmetic improvements are certainly not to everyone's liking. Beauty is very definitely in the eye of the beholder. All conservation groups and like-minded individuals emphatically say that the mud flats are very attractive to the wading and other birds which populate them, to those who enjoy and take pleasure in watching them, and to those who make serious studies of them. That enjoyment, and those studies are possible, because the Taff-Ely estuary has the highest density of wading birds in the whole Severn estuary, and as high a density as any other site in Great Britain. Little wonder that the Taff-Ely estuary was designated as a site of special scientific interest in 1981. That is a factor of no slight consequence.
As the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth said, the proposed barrage would only compromise an area of less than 1 per cent. of the whole Severn estuary SSSI or less than 10 per cent. of the Taff-Ely SSSI. But it must be remembered that it is the most up river part of the SSSI, and the part that is available for feeding first and last with each tidal cycle.
I have numerous statistics for the bird population, but I shall cite just one example, that of the redshank, which has a peak count of 1,500. I am advised that the redshank's presence is significant, as there has been a national decline in redshank numbers. But at least in the Taff-Ely site their population has remained relatively stable. The compensatory works originally proposed by Dr. Ferns are only exactly that. Their feasibility is not yet proven, and the barrage would inevitably eliminate a critical part of the bird feeding area, leading to a substantial reduction in the bird population. That is no small price to pay for what others have chosen to describe as a cosmetic only improvement to the river Taff.
I said that there was no objection in principle to the crossing, and I should add that the advantages of industrial regeneration are recognised by all of us, and, not least, by the conservation groups. It has been pointed out to me, however, that if there was a barrage at the mouth of the river Taff there would be a paradox, because it would then be more difficult to attract new industry further up the Taff vale. Moreover, it is confidently predicted that the standards of discharge into the river Taff would have to be raised by the Welsh water authority. New industries might wish to take advantage of the opportunity to discharge into the river Taff, and so the standards would have to be raised if the Welsh water authority was to avoid an unacceptably high effluent level in the static or much slower flowing waters behind the barrage.
Some of my constituents, along with the Cardiff Naturalists Society, the Glamorgan Trust for Nature Conservation and the RSPB, have asked me to vote against giving the Bill a Second Reading and to speak, and to urge others to do so as well.
However, Second Reading is neither the place nor the time to do anything like that. That would not properly answer all the questions that need to be answered. What is worse, it would jeopardise the crossing across the Taff which we all want to see. I want the Bill to obtain its


Second Reading and to go on to the Opposed Bills Committee. That Committee will comprise four hon. Members who are impartial and who have no axe to grind. Despite any past recriminations about meetings or negotiations that have taken place between the objectors and the council, I am confident that both sides will have a fair crack of the whip in Committee. Accordingly, I am prepared to give the Bill a Second Reading, despite the fact that I have some quite considerable reservations about it. I hope that it will be given a Second Reading, and I urge all other hon. Members to vote in favour of that.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I congratulate the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) on his excellent speech. He set out succinctly many of the objections that I might wish to raise. I share his judgment about the Bill at this stage. Although I have distinct reservations about the environmental impact of the proposed barrage, as well as one other reservation to which I shall refer, I believe that the overall scheme proposed by South Glamorgan county council—the scheme for regeneration of the docklands—is commendable. I should like to see it come to fruition.
I shall concentrate on whether there is a need for a barrage or whether the crossing could be adequately provided by a bridge. The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) may have given the impression that the local authority is unanimous about the proposal. There is certainly not unanimity among the elected members of the county council. I have taken the trouble to make inquiries within the county council, and I know that some members are very concerned about the cost. I believe that the council will have to establish, to the Committee's satisfaction, that the cost of its proposals has been properly investigated. At this stage, I cannot counter the broad figures given by the right hon. Gentleman for the respective cost of a barrage, bridge, or low-level bridge—

Mr. Ray Powell: Will the hon. and learned Gentlemen give way?

Mr. Carlile: Before I give way, perhaps I should say that some county councillors and others in the area believe that the construction of a barrage as opposed to a low-level bridge would cost substantially more. Information on the relative costs has not been made available, as it might have been. I understand that the county council has already spent about £250,000 on research reports and that the estimated cost of building the barrage, which the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth rightly gave as being just over £40 million, is very much not a fixed estimate. Although the cost of building bridges can sometimes escalate out of all belief, the building of bridges tends to be rather more predictable because the engineering technology is much better known. It is possible, however, that the cost of building a barrage will escalate out of all recognition and reality.

Mr. Ray Powell: I am grateful for the opportunity to ensure that the House is clear on this matter. Only two hours ago, I was given to understand that all the councillors on South Glamorgan county council are agreed on the Bill. Indeed, all the political factions on the county council have agreed to support the measure. Will the hon.

and learned Gentleman explain from where he gets his information? I am sure that he does not wish to mislead the House.

Mr. Carlile: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to do so. I have been informed by the leader of the alliance group on the county council that it supports the principle of the scheme and does not oppose the erection of a crossing, but that it opposes the barrage because of the apparently escalating costs of that method of crossing. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman's question.
I move from cost—I have tried to put down a marker for the Committee that the issue of cost must be addressed by proper evidence—to the environmental impact. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which has its Wales headquarters in my constituency, feels strongly about the matter, but it is wrong to suggest that it is not prepared to attend meetings or to consider the views of the county council. I assure the House that, on 13 February at 3 pm, senior staff of the county council met senior staff of the RSPB in Wales, including the Wales officer, Mr. Roger Lovegrove. On that occasion, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, the county council offered to the RSPB what has been described as the compensatory scheme, which involved the construction of artificial mudflats.

Mr. James Callaghan: The mud will not be artificial.

Mr. Carlile: I am reminded that the mud will not be artificial, but the construction will have to be contrived.
So that it is clear that the RSPB was listening to what it was told, I inform the House that the county council suggested that the construction of the proposed alternative site would cost a considerable amount of money, and it is my understanding that a figure of about £1 million was mentioned. The RSPB was asked to consider the matter and undertook to consider it during the following weeks.
The RSPB considered the matter, but rejected the proposed compromise. I assure the House that the RSPB is a responsible body which does not have a record of opposing all developments involving river crossings on environmental grounds. It tries to take a balanced view between the impact of any proposed scheme, which may be extremely beneficial, upon the local population, and the deleterious environmental impact which may arise. As an example of that balanced view, there is a proposal that the stretch of the lengthy Montgomery canal, leading from part of the constituency of the Leader of the House into my constituency, should be reopened. That would require a private Bill. The RSPB, having considered the evidence, believes that the proposals made for the reopening of the canal, which will involve considerable construction work, are acceptable, subject to environmental safeguards which, in principle at least, have been broadly agreed. It is not a body which simply opposes every such development on environmental grounds. It makes a judgment and, in this case, it made a judgment that the impact of a barrage would be more damaging than is justified.
The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth appeared to be a little less knowledgeable than he should be about sites of special scientific interest. We are not simply talking about an unsightly mudflat of relatively minor importance, but about a mudflat which is pail of a complex of wetlands which has achieved international


recognition. It qualifies for protection under the international convention on the conservation of wetlands because it is internationally important. It is also regarded as important under the European Community directive on bird conservation. Indeed, the entire Severn estuary is a proposed special protection area under the EC directive on conservation of wild birds. It is nationally important as a site of special scientific interest because of its important wintering population of shelduck and wading birds, especially dunlin and redshank.
The Taff estuary, although only a small part of the Severn estuary complex, supports 9 per cent. of the birds of the complex and is the third most important subsection of the Severn after Bridgewater bay and the Welsh Grounds. The Taff supports 10 per cent. of the Severn's dunlin population and 26 per cent. of the redshank population. Peak counts of 8,000 dunlin have been recorded. Dunlin and redshank are declining in numbers elsewhere on the west coast.

Mr. James Callaghan: The hon. and learned Gentleman rebuked me for not being as well informed as I should be. If an alternative site is provided for the birds—it is a relatively small matter—why should that reduce the number of birds that roost and feed there? The new site that is being offered, and which the RSPB has not yet accepted, is within a bird's flying distance—a few hundred yards—of the site that would be submerged. I cannot understand the objection in principle by the RSPB.
I am assured that the county council, including the SDP-Liberal alliance, agreed unanimously when the scheme was introduced. Councillors may have had reservations since then on the ground of rising cost, but when the vote was taken, everyone said yes.

Mr. Carlile: The premise upon which the right hon. Gentleman based his first question is false. The provision of an alternative site would not necessarily achieve the purpose of that site.

Mr. Callaghan: Why not?

Mr. Carlile: Because birds may not go to the new site.

Mr. Callaghan: They fly hundreds of miles to get to the present site.

Mr. Carlile: The right hon. Gentleman's simplistic premise flies in the face of the evidence in the report of Dr. P. N. Ferns to the county council, and the considered opinion of the RSPB, which has some expertise in these matters.
The proposed barrage would result in the permanent inundation of at least 8 per cent. of the mudflats on the estuary. Although in quantitative terms it is a relatively small area, it is nevertheless of disproportionate and special importance for feeding birds because of its position at the top of the estuary. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the assertion that the area is important because it is at the top of the estuary. The mud on that flattened area is the last to be covered by the rising tide and the first to be uncovered by the falling tide. As a result, waders concentrate in the area immediately before and immediately after high tide at the time of year when they need to feed for the maximum time. In the coldest conditions they need to feed for longer to acquire fuel in order to survive.
In the mild winter of 1983–84—I cite this example so that the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth and the House can see that the propositions are based on evidence and not just on surmise—66 per cent. of the redshank population in the Taff and 49 per cent. of the dunlin population used the uppermost mudflats for feeding for a significant part of the tidal cycle. In the more severe winter of the following year, 1984–85, 100 per cent. of all species, except curlew, used the area for a significant time. The loss of these mudflats would have serious consequences for birds, especially dunlin and redshank.
I recognise, as does the hon. Member for Cardiff, North, that in the end one must choose between a barrage, which may result in a pretty looking lake with questionable economic benefits, and a perfectly acceptable form of crossing, a bridge, which would not have a considerable impact on the environment and bird life, for, from the point of view of the bird life, it is not good enough to provide another site on the seaward side of the barrage. Expert opinion is that interruption of the natural tidal flow in the estuary because of the barrage could seriously alter the mudflats on the seaward side of the proposed barrage.
As the hon. Member for Cardiff, North said, the reason for a barrage as opposed to another form of crossing is based not on economic or environmental grounds but on cosmetic grounds. A decision must be made whether such an expensive cosmetic recommendation should be adopted, at considerable cost to our important wild life.
The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth knows that the bird life of Wales is one of Wales's greatest possessions. It attracts many people to Wales, not only to those scenic parts in which my constituency is situated, but to other areas where the birds are. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that people go there to see the birds, even if the birds are on mudflats in a rather unattractive area near a city.

Mr. Callaghan: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Carlile: I assume that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to make a serious point.

Mr. Callaghan: I promise the hon. and learned Gentleman that there is no tourist industry in Butetown, and I fear that there is never likely to be one.

Mr. Carlile: I think that the right hon. Gentleman was not present when I reminded the House that this area is part of an internationally recognised conservation area under the Ramsar convention on wetlands of international importance and that it is proposed to be included as a special protection area under the European Community directive. The serious matters which I have raised—they do not deserve the frivolity which has come, surprisingly, from the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth—should be given full, fair and impartial consideration by the Opposed Bills Committee.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Wyn Roberts): It may be helpful if, at this point, I intervene to give a brief indication of the Government's view on the Bill. The Government have considered the content of the Bill and have no objection in principle to the powers sought by the council, although there are minor points of detail that need to be discussed with the promoters. Traditionally, the Government stand


neutral in relation to private Bills, and I do not propose to depart from that practice on this occasion. However, it is clear from the contributions made to the debate so far that the County of South Glamorgan (Taff Crossing) Bill raises important issues which require careful and detailed consideration.
The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) explained the importance of the proposals in the Bill in the context of the county council's plans for the economic regeneration of its area. A crossing of the Taff is clearly seen by the county council as a vital component in the peripheral distributor road scheme designed to improve links with the motorway system and, particularly, to help to bring new life to the old dockland areas of the city whose regeneration is currently being tackled with considerable imagination.
The proposal is that this crossing should be achieved by means of a barrage so as to create a permanent lagoon point to the environmental improvements this would bring about and to the social and recreational benefits which would flow from it. These are all points which cannot be dismissed lightly.
On the other hand, clearly there is a great deal of concern amongst conservationists about the impact on bird life of the proposals to construct an embanked bridge or barrage. The site of the proposed developments affects an area of considerable nature conservation interest—the Taff-Ely estuary—which has been notified by the Nature Conservancy Council as a site of special scientific interest. The site is of regional and national importance for its population of over-wintering wildfowl and wading birds. The NCC includes also the Taff-Ely estuary within the boundary of a wider Severn estuary site which it is considering proposing for designation as a wetland of international importance under the Ramsar convention and as a special protection area for birds under the European Community birds directive, which the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) described.
The NCC takes the view that the construction of a barrage or embanked bridge would entail the loss of an important part of the Taff/Ely site of special scientific interest and has formally advised the Department of the Environment that it objects to the proposals for the Taff crossing contained in the Bill, although it would not object to a crossing which did not involve the loss of feeding grounds. The NCC's report will be placed before the House in the normal way. Undoubtedly, the conservation implications of the proposals demand careful consideration, but they must be weighed against the undoubted benefits which would accrue from the construction of a barrage or bridge, which have been described.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones), the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery and, I am sure, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth that the arguments would best be decided in Committee when the detailed evidence on either side can be presented, examined and evaluated. I therefore recommend to the House that the Bill be given a Second Reading and allowed to proceed in the usual way to Committee where the provisions can be considered in detail.

Mr. Roy Hughes: It is unusual for a Newport Member to intervene in what is essentially a Cardiff matter, and I do so with some trepidation. Strictly

speaking, this is not exclusively a Cardiff matter, because the Bill is sponsored by South Glamorgan county council. However, those of us who recall the reorganisation of local government in the early 1970s realise that, essentially, south Glamorgan is really greater Cardiff.
Cardiff is the capital city of Wales, and all Welshmen are proud of it. In the past decade, it has suffered severe blows to its industrial and commercial base. That was symbolised by the closure of the great East Moors steelworks, when thousands lost their jobs. Other enterprises were equally badly affected.
The county council, in its wisdom, has realised that good communications are the key to new developments and to attracting new jobs to the area. New road schemes have formed a large part of the county council's regeneration scheme. There is a need for better linkage with the M4 via the Severn bridge to south-east England and, likewise, better access via the M50 and the M5 to the midlands and north England. The major element in this strategy is a southern link road around Cardiff. The southern part of Cardiff would particularly benefit, including the docks which in recent years have suffered because of the loss of their traditional trade. Other developments running parallel to the new road scheme consist of residential, commercial, high-tech, leisure and public development. Altogether it seems to be a most enterprising scheme.
The route of the new road has been considered for many years, and the line chosen was considered and then approved after public inquiries. The whole scheme is to undertake industrial and commercial regeneration but, significantly, one of its principal aims is to improve the environment. The county council has granted planning permission for a barrage option and an embankment/bridge where the road crosses the estuary.
It is felt that these developments could considerably improve the appearance of the lower reaches of the river Taff and provide recreational and leisure opportunities for the Cardiff people. This is not just a cosmetic exercise, as was suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile). The construction of a barrage would ensure that the unattractive river bed and lower part of the river, which are exposed at low tide, are covered by water at all tidal levels. Those objectives and the developments they encompass are commendable. They make sense from an economic and investment standpoint and in environmental and recreational terms.
A snag in the scheme which has already been mentioned several times is that some disturbance will be caused to the conservation interests of the Taff estuary and the site of special scientific interest. As a result, there have been protests. For example, I received from the Gwent Ornithological Society through its chairman, Mr. Peter Martin, a letter dated 14 March, in which he said that the Taff estuary was special because it supported 9 per cent. of the birds—mainly waders—using the Severn estuary. Those birds feed on the mud flats which would be enclosed by the proposed development.
Other conservationist bodies have been active and have made their views known. I suppose that it is a sign of the times, and praiseworthy, that such strong protests should be made in the interests of conservation. Nevertheless, we must all recognise that a reasonable and fair balance must be found between the interests of the economy and the environment and the interests of conservation.
The county council believes that its proposed development tends to outweigh the more specialised conservation and ecological considerations. On balance, I tend—reluctantly, in some ways—to support the county council's view. We are, after all, living in a time of mass unemployment, and Wales has particularly suffered. Cardiff, like many other parts of the country, badly needs new jobs. This development will help to provide them. Likewise, with the growth of technology, more leisure time will be made available. A recreational scheme of the type proposed by South Glamorgan county council will help to fill a need.
As I understand it, the county council is prepared to sit down with the Nature Conservancy Council, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and other interested groups so that compensatory measures can be discussed. For example, a small nature reserve has been suggested because new habitats may be created behind the barrage. Every encouragement should be given to this possibility. New mud flats and roosting sites will be created.
The number of disturbances could be controlled. The county council's suggestions leave me with the impression that the conservationist bodies are knocking at an open door. The South Glamorgan county council is prepared to co-operate with the bodies which have the necessary expertise. The council has had a good conservation record since its inauguration in the early 1970s. This Bill is, therefore, worth supporting. It should be given a Second Reading, for, with good will, the objections can be ironed out.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: I object to the Bill not because I do not want a crossing of the estuary of the river Taff, but because the barrier that has been proposed achieves the crossing in a way that is less than adequate. We all recognise the need for Cardiff to develop its economy, and we certainly support the aim of creating jobs. I have a great deal of sympathy for the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) and the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes), who all argued the economic case. There is no doubt that hon. Members who represent that part of south Wales have a compelling duty to try to improve the economy and to bring jobs to their area. I myself come from an area which needs jobs, and I can understand the need to make rapid and lasting progress in this respect.
What I find highly objectionable about the Bill is not the crossing itself but its proposed form, its effect and its cost. It could very well be achieved without destroying a valuable habitat and what I believe will in future be an area of great interest for residents of Cardiff, particularly when Cardiff enjoys the economic regeneration which we all expect. The crossing could retain that interest and also, by creating better communications and industrial connections, achieve the economic benefits which we would all like to see. It could also be constructed at considerably less cost to the taxpayer.
We have had a long discussion about dunlin and redshank and numbers of wading birds. I do not intend to go down that road, but I do want to mention four of the really important aspects of the conservation argument. This is a site of special scientific interest. It is also

scheduled under the Ramsar convention. The environmental requirements, therefore, need to be examined very carefully.
The area to be affected covers some 9 per cent. of the birds of the whole Severn complex, so it is not something to be sniffed at and the number of birds is not insignificant. The area affected is at the top of the tide, so it is of particular interest and value to these birds in periods of very heavy weather. In the hard winter of 1984–85—and, I am sure, in this past winter although we have no figures yet—100 per cent. of the species spent some of their time feeding in this area. It is of clear benefit to them. If they do not have it for feeding, they do not go elsewhere, because there is nowhere else to go; they are just lost to the bird population.
Why should we care about this? Wetlands and coastal habitats of this type are under threat. They are diminishing. We have a clear duty to protect these irreplaceable assets for future generations. The Government have recognised this principle in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and also through European Community directives in, for example, the Ramsar convention. Are we in this House merely to ignore this? That is not good enough, without the most convincing reasons for doing so.
I might consider my argument a little weaker if this would stop the development and modernisation of Cardiff, but I do believe that it would. If we achieved these essential communications across the Taff estuary, they would in themselves lead to economic activity and to all the benefits of a more effective and vigorous economy in the area.
Moreover, it would be cheaper and easier to build a bridge on concrete piers which would allow the tide to flow and so not destroy the habitat. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) mentioned the cost. It is a significant factor. When it examines this matter, the Committee will need to know the exact costs, the cost of the barrage and of the hydraulically operated sluice gates, together with the cost of the annual and ongoing dredging rather than just the compensation to be paid to the dredging company. It will need to know if significant costs will be incurred by raising the level of water and thus increasing the damp in the adjacent houses. I ask that all those costs be put before the Committee and be compared with the cost of a simple bridge on stilts.
In addition to the loss of habitat and the expense, the county council, in my view—and I say this as an outsider. I admit—has shown a lack of vision and a failure of imagination. While I accept the need to develop the area, the opportunity could have been taken to create a valuable natural reserve and an area of great interest for local people. In the proposed new leisure complex, for example, why could a viewing centre not have been set up overlooking the mud flats, with perhaps a small museum to show local people the value of mud flat and tidal waters for wildlife and explaining the wildlife which exists? That would have been of unique benefit and of great educational value, and it would have fitted in well with the redevelopment of the area.
Leaving the mud flats does not mean choosing between birds and people; it is really making the best use of what is there to help the people and to encouraging interest in the area. The rusty cycles and bedsteads lying on those mud flats are not there just because there are mud flats there, but because people have no interest in the area. If


one were to create an interest and bring out the variety in the area, one could solve that particular problem. Yet instead of this vision, the county council has decided to use the bridge and barrier to go for an inland lagoon which will not only destroy what is natural and special about the area, but will put something which is neat and dull in place of something which is or could be perhaps wild and intriguing.
It is not good enough to claim that the county council will create another habitat and make recompense for what has been lost. New habitats need years in which to create the diversity and complexity of an established habitat. I think of ancient woodland where it has taken 300 or 400 years to develop that complexity. It may not take so long in the Taff estuary—I am no expert on mud flats—but we will not replace one habitat with another at all easily. So we are going to lose something. Although the county council must be encouraged to do as much as possible to replace the habitat, we cannot fool ourselves that we will be successful.
We all support the development of Cardiff. I respect the line taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North and his great interest in the economic prosperity of his constituency and area. But we can achieve that without destroying a valuable habitat. We can achieve that without an expensive solution, by going for something that is clearly more cost effective for the taxpayer.
Above all, by destroying the habitat, the county council would be losing an opportunity to create an imaginative site full of interest for the people of the area. If the Bill goes into Committee, these matters must be fully examined, and the Committee should alter the Bill to take account of the valid objections that have been made.

Dr. John Marek: I agree with many of the points made by the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle).
I wish to express my concern about what is proposed by the county council in the development in Cardiff. Bills such as this arouse concern and opposition. Depending on what one makes of earlier speeches, the county council may or may not have met the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. That leads to the view that people who build roads often bring a bad name on themselves.
No hon. Member thinks that the road should not be built, but the proposal was introduced in such a way that there was bound to be opposition. There are two parts to the proposal. The first relates to the road and the second to an amenity lake and scenic area. They can be separated, because it is possible to build the road on stilts, costing £4 million or £6 million less than if it is built on a barrage. I would welcome a contradiction from any hon. Member if I am wrong.
We all want the road. Wales needs communications. It has suffered from bad communications for long enough. There are dreadful roads in mid-Wales and no motorway in north Wales. A bypass at Wrexham was built only on the condition that the railway line was singled, thus depriving us of a decent railway service. I have no argument against the road. We need plenty of good roads because our success as a modernised industrialised nation depends on our ability to communicate with the other parts of the country and Europe.
However, the road could be built on stilts. There would have been no opposition if the county council had proposed that idea. Instead, the county council has embarked on an ambitious plan for this derelict area.
Earlier this evening I saw an exhibition, mounted by the county council, with pictures of rotting and rusty metal in the mudflats. The residential area appears to be a quarter or half a mile further up the river. I asked the county council why, if the residential area was further up the river Taff, it could not build a barrage there. Its answer was that it wanted to build a sports arid amenity complex halfway between the barrage and the residential area. Therefore, there is some point in having a barrage lower down the river so that the view can be more scenic.

Mr. James Callaghan: I would not wish my hon. Friend to be under any misapprehension about where the houses are. The houses of Grangetown are a quarter of a mile away, but there is one area in my constituency where the people do not need a viewing centre, because they already look out over the mudflats.

Dr. Marek: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that information. My only knowledge of the area comes from having looked at the maps and pictures two hours ago.
There should have been some compromise before the Bill came before the House. It is no use trying to find out who is to blame, but there has not been enough communication. If there has been a meeting, there has been only one. Something must be done. I share the view of other hon. Members that we should not hold up the Bill on Second Reading. Therefore, I do not intend to talk for one and a half hours. However, I have one or two points to make. The Bill should have a Second Reading and go into Committee, where I hope that meetings can be arranged, arguments can be put forward and we can achieve a compromise.
One possible compromise would be to move the road further north. However, that is not practical, because the road will be extremely expensive, and it appears that the county council would not consider it. Another possibility was mooted by the RSPB, the Cardiff naturalist trusts, and the other environmental bodies, all of which are concerned. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) mentioned four bodies as being against the plan, so one cannot dismiss the environmental arguments.
The RSPB and other environmental bodies have suggested that the bridge should be built on stilts, so that the tide can go in and out. However, that would not satisfy the legitimate aspirations of the county council, which wants to do something for the area so that the residents will have a tidy environment. Moreover, it wants to build the leisure centre in a first-class position. Simply to have the rotting iron remaining there, with the tide going in and out of the mudflats, is not what the county council wishes to see.
Another possibility is to scrape away the spart grass on the other side of the barrage and to have a one or two-acre lake with a shallow end and a wide expanse. One would then hope that, deprived of their natural feeding habitats, the birds would fly over the new road and settle and feed on the other side. I am not a member of the RSPB, nor an expert on birds, but I shall believe that when I see it. The county council is prepared, as my right hon. Friend the


Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) has said, to build such a lake before constructing the road. That might be a good idea. I am not sure whether invertebrates will be found on the other side of the proposed road construction once the spart grass has been scraped away, so that everything will be available for the birds. However, we should not dismiss that idea until it has been investigated. I know that the county council has undertaken a study, but this solution should be investigated fully to find out whether it would be acceptable.
The RSPB may be worried that, if it gives way on this project, there may be problems. Every two or three months an area used by birds is under threat—whether from a farmer wanting to plough it up, a county council wanting to build a road across it or a company wanting to dig peat out of it to distil whisky.
I am concerned about this matter in general. The RSPB could be right in saying that if the county council goes ahead with its plan but it does not work out, the council could wash its hands of the area. I would welcome a commitment in Committee that the county council would maintain an ongoing interest in the problem. If the road were built with an appropriate area for the waders on the other side of the barrage, that might be adequate. However, if that did not work, I hope the county council will not say, "We built the road five years ago and it is too late to worry about the birds now. We had 8,000 redshanks five years ago, but we have only 2,000 now. We have no clue where the others have gone but they must be somewhere." I hope that the county council will take a more positive attitude. They should realise that there is a serious problem. Redshank numbers are declining on the west coast. Once the council has realised that, perhaps it could spend some money to discover the cause of the decline in numbers and make adequate arrangements with regard to the building of the road.
If the county council could give such a commitment, to have a continuing interest in the bird population once the road has been built, the RSPB could take note of that and therefore have more faith in the council.
There is another possibility which might be entertained. As I understand it, the barrage would cost £42 million and the low level bridge £38 million. It might be possible to build a low level bridge and build a barrage with the extra £4 million or £6 million 200 yards north of the bridge. It would not be necessary to put a road on that barrage, and therefore it would be cheap. That barrage would be built at an angle to satisfy the residents—[Interruption.] I am making a suggestion.

Mr. Stefan Terlezki: Come on.

Dr. Marek: If the hon. Gentleman would like to intervene, I shall gladly give way as I would like to hear what he has to say.
If we give the Bill a Second Reading, we will show that we agree in principle with the proposal although we have some reservations. In the debate we are offering suggestions. These suggestions may be hopeless, but the council should consider them seriously. If the suggestions prove to be useful at the end of the day, the House might have done a service to the members of the public that it seeks to represent.
It is possible to build a bridge on stilts or a low level bridge and use the extra money to build a barrage 200 or 300 yards north of the bridge. From my examination of maps of the area, the bank in question is just that very small distance north of where the bridge might be positioned. If the bridge were built at an angle, it might be possible to satisfy both parties involved in the consideration of the problem.
It might also be possible to build a road partially as a barrage and with stilts in the central part. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Terlezki) should not lower the tone of the debate by his sedentary interventions. This is a serious issue to the people not only of Cardiff but throughout this country from Land's End to John O'Groats. People are seriously worried about the environmental depredations that are taking place every day of the year. The matter is extremely serious and it deserves our careful consideration.
I shall not detain the House for much longer. It is possible to build a low level bridge to form a barrage for most of its route with stilts in the middle. A semi-circular barrage could be built to keep the banks that are important for the dunlin and the redshank. Although there are many acres of mudbanks in the Severn estuary, as other hon. Members have explained, the mudbanks that we are considering tonight have more than their average share of waders. The fact that the area is at the top of the estuary and is therefore the last area to be covered when the tide comes in and the first to be uncovered when the tide goes out makes it very important for wading birds.
In conclusion, I hope that the controversy about this matter can be dispensed with and that the Bill will receive a Second Reading. I hope, too, that in Committee we shall be able to resolve our differences. There must be a middle way in this matter. We must have the road—there is no doubt about that—but we must also preserve our environment.

Mr. Ray Powell: I will not go down the same road as my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek). He has covered a number of points which I hope will be examined closely by the Committee after the Bill receives its Second Reading.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) began his speech by apologising for taking part in the debate because he did not think that he should be involved as he was an hon. Member for Newport. He thought that he should not become involved in a debate about Cardiff. Having listened to speeches from the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle) and from the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) and now from my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham, I make no apology for speaking in the debate. My constituency is Ogmore, and the river Taff runs through Ogmore to Cardiff. Most of my constituents shop in Cardiff and go there for their entertainment. I believe that the benefits of the Bill could extend to my constituents.
I am rather surprised that the Conservative Members with Cardiff constituencies have not sought to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would remind them of a statement made by Nye Bevan that "If you sit on the fence too long, the iron will rot your soul." I would have thought that they would have been open in their support for the Bill. Local authorities in their constituencies, the South


Glamorgan county council and the Conservative party have given much support to the Bill, and I cannot understand why they have not supported it.
In all probability they share the same view that I would like to express regarding my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan). We all listened to his comprehensive speech, which covered most of the issues involved in this short debate. As might be expected from a previous Prime Minister and the present Father of the House, my right hon. Friend made an excellent speech. I take great pleasure in complimenting him on what was an excellent maiden speech on a private Bill. I know that that sentiment would receive sympathetic backing from all hon. Members present tonight.
I have known my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth for at least 30 years. I am familiar with his service and representation to the city of Cardiff and to the Cardiff constituencies that he has represented as there have been parliamentary boundary changes almost every other election. I am sure that the House would unreservedly give its support to a Bill which my right hon. Friend introduced on Second Reading. I am sure that my right hon. Friend would be concerned only about the interests of the constituents that he has served in Cardiff and that he would not propose any measure to the House that might be detrimental to his constituents or to the environment of the Cardiff area in general.
I have no reservations about supporting the Second Reading of the Bill. I know the area well and I have canvassed there on many occasions, in Cardiff, North, South, East and West and indeed in Cardiff, South and Penarth. I did that when Cardiff, South and Penarth was Cardiff and Penarth before the reorganisations many years ago. I know the specific area we are talking about. I believe that the Bill should receive a Second Reading so that a Committee can be set up.
I am even more pleased to support a Bill on the Floor of the House having recently been involved in a controversial debate in the House on whether private Bills were needed and whether hon. Members should sit on Committees discussing them. I share the view that we should make facilities available in the House for private Bills and that hon. Members should serve on the Committees considering them. I know that on occasions that is irksome. Hon. Members may not have a particular interest in a Bill. Nevertheless, I have served on two such Committees, and they were interesting. I am sure that those who are asked to serve on the Committee considering this Bill will also find it interesting.
Having discussed all the issues mentioned by the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones), I am convinced that his arguments are reasonable, forthright and responsible and I feel sure that the Committee will investigate fully the points that he so ably and responsibly raised. After Second Reading, the matters that he raised can be looked at in depth and in detail.
Having read more literature from the preservation societies on this proposal than, perhaps, from South Glamorgan county council, I know that it is necessary to look after the environment. I fought the last general election against a Greenpeace candidate and I learnt more about the environment and that movement than I had known before.
To date, the cost to the county authority is about £60 million and the link road to the M4 from the Grangetown link to the Butetown link should be approved. If the M4

stops where it is now, it appears, from examining the drawings and maps earlier, that the road would lead only to a residential area in Grangetown and through to the docks. If the Bill does not receive its Second Reading a great opportunity will be lost and the road will lead to nowhere. The problems of Grangetown as described by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth will remain unresolved.
If hon. Members had taken the opportunity to look at some of the maps and drawings of some of the areas covered by the proposal and at the proposals of the county councils, they would appreciate that it is necessary for constituents to have their environment changed. A large area of Cardiff could be changed, far beyond the changes set out in the Bill.
The sponsors of the Bill have been kind enough to ensure that we have notice of the petitions against the Bill on the grounds of its potential effects on bird life which have been lodged by four conservation bodies. The county council accepts that the case for those conservation interests deserves careful consideration.
Two petitions have been lodged against the Bill by businesses which are likely to be affected. Negotiations are taking place with those petitioners which it is hoped will result in agreement. It is respectfully submitted that unless negotiations produce an agreed solution an opposed private Bill Committee would be the appropriate forum for considering the case. Most hon. Members have expressed that opinion earlier in the debate.
The county council has offered to the conservation petitioners a commitment to implement the material measures mentioned. The county council will gladly explain the material measures to a Committee of the House and undertake through that Committee to carry out those measures before commencing the construction of the river crossing. That covers the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham.
The county council respectfully called attention to the fact that giving a Second Reading to a private Bill means that the House affirms the principle of the Bill conditionally and subject to the proof of the allegations of fact before the Committee to which the Bill is referred. Those allegations of fact are comprised in the preamble to the Bill on which the case for the Bill is founded. In the circumstances, it is respectfully submitted that it would be proper for the Bill to be given a Second Reading so that the issues which it raises may be thoroughly investigated in Committee. Therefore, I support the Bill and I hope that the House will do likewise.

Mr. James Callaghan: With the leave of the House, I have an obligation to those who have expressed strong reservations on the Bill to say a few words to try to reassure and to meet the reservations raised by the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle), the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek).
The county council's general record in conservation of the environment is well known. I am one of the few people in the House who has an island in his constituency—Flat Holm. If any hon. Member had any doubts about the environmental interests of the county council he need only go to Flat Holm to see what has been done there to preserve


and conserve its heritage. In addition, there is the Gwent-Glamorgan heritage coast, the Cosmeston lakes country park, Caerphilly mountain country park, the medieval village and an ambitious tree-planting project.
I am sure of the bona fides of South Glamorgan county council in this matter. It told me that it does not wish to be seen as vandalistic or insensitive in its consideration. It wishes to find a balanced and sensible compromise. South Glamorgan as an authority is conscious of the need to protect and enhance the quality of the environment, both generally and specifically. It wishes to seek the cooperation of the Nature Conservancy Council, the RSPB and other interested groups in determining the type and nature of compensatory measures. Hon. Members who raised those questions will find that South Glamorgan has every desire to come to some agreement.
I make one final offer to those hon. Members who have expressed their reservations, but not to those who have expressed their support. If they care to come to Cardiff, I shall stand them a good lunch and I believe that they would be convinced by what they saw.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed.

Agricultural and Horticultural Co-operation Grants

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): I beg to move,
That the draft Agricultural and Horticultural Co-operation Grants (Extension of Period) Order 1986, which was laid before this House on 23rd April, be approved.
The Agriculture Act 1967 provided authority for a scheme of grants to encourage and develop co-operation in the production and marketing of agricultural produce. There have been three extensions, in 1977, in 1980 and again in 1983, the latter ending on 14 May 1986. We propose to extend the period during which a co-operative grants scheme may operate by a maximum of five years, compared with three on previous occasions. I believe that the agricultural and horticultural co-operation scheme has done much over the years to encourage producers to come together and to undertake imaginative and forward-looking investments.
Since 1981–82 expenditure under the AHCS has more than doubled, from about £2 million to over £4 million. Over the same period launching aid paid to new fruit and vegetable co-operatives under EC legislation has risen from virtually nil to £1·2 million. Other grants payable to forage groups in the less favoured areas brings the current annual level of expenditure on co-operative grants to over £5·5 million. Given the growth in expenditure, we have looked at the AHCS in relation to other claims on the limited resources available. We have concluded that there are simply not the resources to allow unlimited further expansion of expenditure under the scheme and that some steps should be taken to bring it under greater control.
We believe that the necessary additional control of expenditure can be brought about by laying down a number of objective criteria by which applications will in future be assessed and by identifying some of the consequences flowing from them. One of my officials has, therefore, written today to the chief executive of Food from Britain setting out the criteria. Copies of the letter will be placed in the Library of the House. However, hon. Members may find it helpful if I outline the main criteria and the effect that they will have on the grants awarded.
The criteria include the funds allocated by Ministers in each financial year to pay grant claims. For 1986–87 the total provision for co-operative grants is about £5 million, about £4·8 million in 1987–88 and about £4·4 million in 1988–89. There is a time lag of up to two years between the award and the payment of the grant. In order to keep expenditure within the provision, therefore, we will need to tailor the level of approvals currently being given to match the money available for later years. One way in which we will do this is to place an upper limit on grant on any individual project of £100,000.
Ministers already restrict the amount of AHCS grant awarded to successful co-operative applicants under EC regulation 355/77. Successful co-operatives can now obtain up to 50 per cent. of the cost of projects from these two sources, which we consider too high when overall resources are limited. We shall therefore in future be limiting AHCS grant in such cases to 15 per cent., which, together with grant under regulation 355/77, will still total up to 40 per cent. of the cost—a substantial incentive.
The supply and demand position of each commodity will also be taken into account. This is very much part and parcel of the Government's policy to bring into the equation the realities of a world which is now in surplus rather than in shortage. As a result, we do not expect capital grants to be made to co-operatives in the cereals sector in future.
The criteria will be applied to applications received by FFB after today and prospective applicants will also be informed of them. We will, of course, continue to make grants available under the scheme for non-capital expenditure, which includes formation costs, feasibility studies, initial managerial salaries and marketing agents fees. Such grants can help to ensure that co-operatives get off to a good start and employ good quality staff to run their businesses.
For a number of years there has been a ceiling on the level of non-capital grant recommendations which FFB can make to Ministers in any one year. This has stood at £450,000, and we are reducing it to £350,000 for 1986–87 in order to stay within the financial resources available. As I have indicated, if we do not take this action now there is every likelihood that expenditure will soon outstrip resources. Nevertheless, expenditure on grants will still be substantial at around £4·4 million in 1988–89.
I am sure that the House will welcome the continuation of the AHCS and will recognise the widespread benefits which it has brought. I am sure that the House would also want it to be carried forward within the new situation brought about by the surplus production, which is now a continuing feature of our agricultural and horticultural life. Therefore, it seems perfectly right that we should make the sort of changes in administration which I have outlined, and I felt that this debate on the statutory instrument ought to give us a chance to acquaint the House with them.
I commend the statutory instrument to the House as a means of ensuring that these grants are available for a further period, but within the context of the overall resources we have to apply, and also with the new situation which we must constantly take into account now that we are concerned with surpluses, not only in this country and Europe, but in the world.

Mr. John Home Robertson: The Minister of State referred briefly to the need to deal with the new situation that confronts the agriculture industry because of the surpluses that are a new feature of this type of market. It would be helpful to the industry and to many other people if the Government could give a clearer lead about the direction the industry is supposed to be taking. The Opposition support the order. There is a strong case to be made for promoting co-operatives and assisting change to take place, where appropriate, in the agriculture industry.
The only point that I want to put to the Minister relates to the body that has been charged with the task of disbursing funds, Food from Britain. The Minister said that an official in his Department had today written to the chief executive of Food from Britain. Some of those who are involved in the agriculture industry might wonder whether his letter will be returned to him- tomorrow marked "Not known at this address." There is an air of crisis about Food from Britain. A meeting of that organisation has taken place today and it would be useful if the Minister could say something about it.
If this and other marketing schemes that are the responsibility of Food from Britain are to continue—I stress that there is universal support for a national promotional organisation for agricultural produce and for its funding not only by the Government but by the industry—help is needed. The funding of Food from Britain is in a state of crisis. The organisation has been unable to secure the £4·8 million that it needs to run a credible operation during the current year. The Government have guaranteed £3 million, which is welcome and appropriate. The Meat and Livestock Commission is to provide £265,000, but that is considerably less than was envisaged. As yet, nothing has been promised by the Milk Marketing Board, and a poll of cereal producers has yet to take place to find out whether they are prepared to contribute towards the organisation. There needs to be more certainty about the future of Food from Britain. Nevertheless, it might be argued that, because of the uncertainty surrounding it, the agriculture industry is not in a good position to take on this additional burden.
It would be helpful if the Minister could say whether the Government intend Food from Britain to survive and to succeed and whether, if necessary, they are prepared to tide it over. This would be an appropriate opportunity for the Minister to say something about the matter. It would be relevant to this order, because Food from Britain is the organisation through which these funds will be channelled. Again I stress the Opposition's general support for the objectives of the order. I hope that the Minister will be able to allay some of my fears.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: I commend my hon. Friend the Minister of State for directing resources towards areas of need that are not covered by those commodities that are in surplus. He will have commended himself and his ministerial team to the public as a whole who are casting a careful eye over the agriculture industry and its support mechanisms. What he has done is right, and I congratulate him on doing it.
I have a specific point to put my hon. Friend about the draft order. Previous orders have run for a period of three years. This order is to run for five years. In the light of the remarks of the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr Home Robertson), I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would explain the reason for this extension.

Mr. Richard Livsey: I welcome the extension of the AHCS support. It is essential for the industry. However, further development of such grants is needed. In the context of the surpluses to which reference has already been made, there is a need to develop new markets and new products. We are depressed by the surpluses, but they should not allow our vision to become clouded. We may be able to produce new products that secure new markets. We should not ignore that.
Undoubtedly, there is under-funding of Food from Britain. However, the industry must be grateful for £3 million this year. That is obviously a help, but there is an immense task ahead. For example, New Zealand promotes its lamb in Britain at a cost of something like £7 million and that shows one of the problems we face in marketing our own food, but there is vast scope here too for us. The Minister said that there were limits on the amount of money that could be spent. I understand that, because for


purposes of good housekeeping he has to work within a budget. However, I should not like to think that the Treasury has placed a dead hand on co-operative grants for agriculture.
As has been said, the industry is in something of a crisis. I have visited co-operative and marketing units on the continent, and it is obvious that a lot of money has been spent on co-operatives there. Continental farmers have advantages because of investment in the past, and we have not caught up with them. I was recently in western France and saw a co-operative that was developing new products. It was bringing forward six new meat products a month and selecting one of them for marketing. As I was leaving the building I noticed that many of the products were stamped and destined for Sainsbury's. We have serious problems to face in competition and marketing and if Food from Britain is in something of a crisis we need to pay attention to that. This is not a contentious issue in terms of politics across the House. The industry needs support, especially in marketing. I support the renewal of the AHCS grants but they need to be beefed up.

Mr. Gummer: I should like to answer the points that have been raised and to thank Members on both sides of the House for their support.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) asked about grant extension. We have sought to extend the period from three to five years because we believe that it is helpful for the industry to have security and to know that grants will continue over a longer period. Where we have the chance, it is necessary to give agriculture and horticulture such reassurance. That is because it is much more difficult to operate in a world where the security that comes from shortage has been replaced by the insecurity that is bound to attend surplus.
It is a curious fact within the industry, and one that we must face, that when people no longer have the assurance that they can always market what they produce because of shortage, they have to learn to live in a new kind of world. We want to make sure that there is no danger of people feeling that at some point in the future they will find themselves without these grants. That is why we have extended the period from three to five years.
The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) asked whether, if the industry was unable to come up with the extra funding for Food from Britain, the Government would tide it over. The Government are already supplying £3 million. We have also agreed to provide additional sums next year, and in future we will supply matching funds on a generous basis, but we are not prepared to come up with more funds if the industry is not prepared to back Food from Britain. That is because Food from Britain works only if the industry is deeply involved in it and shows backing for it. We have no reason to doubt that the industry will produce the money that is necessary.
The hon. Member for East Lothian talked about a state of crisis. The way to create a state of crisis is to say that. There is no state of crisis in Food from Britain. It is continuing to operate successfully. However, it does not have the assurance of its future funding that we had hoped, not because it is not there, but simply because, as so often happens, the agriculture industry takes longer to come to the necessary arrangements. Reasonably, it has been

suggested that until the poll among cereal producers has been carried through it is difficult to see what will come from that area. It is true that the milk marketing boards have not yet fixed a figure, but they have said that they will give generous support in line with the support given by other people.
The hon. Gentleman has been long enough in agriculture to accept that. It is always true that various sectors want to make sure that others are contributing before they put down their money. I can understand that. That and the innate conservatism—if I may use that word—of the agriculture industry taking a little longer to decide what to do override and run against the enthusiasm which we on both sides of the House have for Food from Britain.
I beg the House to accept that it is only if the industry itself shows enthusiasm by putting its money where its mouth is that we shall get the Food from Britain that we want. An enormous sum is not needed, but what is needed must come from the industry.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: Would not the industry do well to refresh its memory by looking at the experience of the French marketing co-operatives to see what can be done? Over the past few years, the progress that the French organisation has made may have been forgotten. Food from Britain was modelled on it. It may have been forgotten how persistence will produce similar results of a dynamic nature.

Mr. Gummer: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right, and that everyone in the House agrees that the agriculture industry would do itself and the nation a great disservice if it did not take seriously the need to provide the funds so that food can be presented with the same enthusiasm, panache and expertise as so many other products are produced. We are spending less per head as a proportion of our income on food than we have in the past. It is important that we ensure that the public are aware of the benefits, particularly of British-grown and produced food.

Mr. Home Robertson: I assure the Minister that, as a cereals producer, I shall vote for a levy when the poll takes place. The fact remains, however, that if the Minister has been reading the papers he will recognise that it is not I who have suggested that there is a crisis, but that it is broadly acknowledged that there is a crisis in Food from Britain. The scale of the crisis could mean that that organisation may not even be able to take part in the Paris show, which would be a tragedy.
Will the Minister give an undertaking that the Government will use such influence as they have with public organisations, such as the Meat and Livestock Commission and milk marketing boards, to ensure that they take their share of the burden? It is not good enough if Food from Britain has to stagger from crisis to crisis. There must be a guarantee to ensure that it can continue to succeed, as it has begun to succeed.

Mr. Gummer: My objection to the word "crisis" was that it is an inappropriate word. It suggests that it might be a continuing crisis of the sort to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
The organisation was a creation of the Government, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and his predecessor put a great deal of personal support into it. There was also great support from


elsewhere in the House—I am not talking on a party political basis. That had not been done before in Britain. It was an important innovation. It should have been done a long time ago. Now that we have got it going, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we want to continue it. It is not a crisis, but merely a function of moving from one system to another, and of that new system being a necessary way to bring the industry to the next stage. The industry must be deeply involved in Food from Britain if it is to succeed. That is what I am concerned about.
I do not wish to use the word "crisis", first, because it is not true even if other people outside may have used that word, and, secondly, because such talk is depressing for an industry which does not need to feel depressed. Many people have shown considerable support for the organisation. The Government will continue to make it clear that it is our view that Food from Britain should go from strength to strength. We want it to increase its ability to serve the farming and horticultural community. Therefore, we will go on saying to those in the position of making decisions that they ought to support Food from Britain. We shall not force them to do so. That does not work unless they can recognise the importance of it and provide a good proportion of the funding, with a generous return from the Government.
I welcome the support of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) for Food from Britain and his desire for it to succeed. It is true to say that we are late in the business of selling British agricultural products. We have a remarkable range, which is increasingly finding its place in the markets of the world, and we are selling better at home against imported goods. This is because we are beginning to understand much more that food has to be presented and sold with the same expertise as anything else. I wish to see that continue, and I am glad to note that we have all-party support for it.
My response to the first comment made by the hon. Member for East Lothian is that I am concerned about the constant requests that he makes about the need for guidance. Of course the Government must give guidance on what the agriculture industry should do. The aim should be to find opportunities and to encourage people to take up those opportunities.
The purpose of the statutory instrument is to ensure that there is an opportunity to provide grants for goods and services, to the benefit of the industry. The one thing that

the Government must not be led into doing, and must not be pressed to do, is to produce some kind of blueprint that suggests to people what they ought to grow and what they ought not to grow. First, if the Government did this and everybody followed what they said, one would be in surplus very rapidly. Secondly, it suggests that the Government are better at doing the farming than is the farmer himself. That I deny, and I think it to be quite wrong. We must not try to recreate the kind of security which, inevitably, is associated with shortage in a world which, by its very nature, cannot have that security in future. We must, however, ensure that where security can be provided, it is provided.
The purpose of the statutory instrument and the extension of the period is precisely to give some security where we can guarantee it, but not to give the false security provided by the White Paper "Food From Our Own Resources". That suggested that we ought to do things when, almost as soon as that document was printed, we learnt we should not have done at all.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Agricultural and Horticultural Co-operation Grants (Extension of Period) Order 1986, which was laid before this House on 23rd April, be approved.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 79(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.)

VALUE ADDED TAX

That the Value Added Tax (Land) Order 1986 (S.I., 1986, No. 704), dated 15th April 1986, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th April, be approved.

That the Value Added Tax (Land) (No. 2) Order 1986 (S.I., 1986, No. 716), dated 17th April 1986, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th April, be approved.—[Mr. Neubert.]

Question agreed to.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS (JOINT COMMITTEE)

Ordered,
That Mr. Stuart Randall he discharged from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and Mr. William Cash and Mr. Nick Raynsford be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Neubert.

Overseas Civil Service (War Service Credits)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Neubert.]

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I declare a pecuniary interest in the subject that I bring to the attention of the House. If the Government respond favourably to the debate I, as a retired member of the overseas civil service with wartime service in the Royal Air Force, will be a beneficiary.
I hope that my hon. Friends the Members for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) and for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) will be successful in intervening before the Minister replies to the debate. I am authorised by my hon. Friends the Members for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) and for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) to say that they are unable to be here but support what I am about to say.
The Colonial Service, now called Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service, together with the Indian Civil Service and the Sudan Civil Service, was responsible for the government of the British empire. Although recruited by the United Kingdom Government in London, its members were employed and paid by the Governments of the colonies to which they were assigned. They served the British Crown and British interests abroad in many different capacities, as administrators, accountants, engineers, policemen, educationists and in other professions. They worked under all sorts of adverse conditions of climate and health, often with primitive accommodation and usually without even the normal amenities of civilisation. The consequence was usually shorter careers, early retirement and shorter lives. They endured those conditions because, to be a member of the Colonial Service, with its personal challenges, dangers and adventures was worthwhile and a reward in itself. They were the instrument of Britain's contribution to the welfare of its overseas territories and they were proud that under them the standards of government, law and order and justice were raised to levels never known before, and in some cases since, in the countries concerned.
Although almost all its members were graduates and professional men and women, specially selected for their jobs, the Colonial Service was always the most neglected of the British public services. Its pay and pensions were comparatively low, being fixed according to the relative poverty of the colonies providing them and often influenced by hostile local politicians.
That does not matter so much now, when most of them are retired, but what does rankle with those who were first appointed to their colonies after serving in the second world war is the British Government's refusal to include in their pension computation an element on account of their war service. All the other public services in Britain—the Home Civil Service, the Diplomatic Service, the Armed Forces, the police, and even the teachers—have their war service taken into account when their pensions are calculated and paid. Only the Colonial Service—the Overseas Civil Service—does not. Members of the other public services who were appointed after service in the war get credits for that war service in their pensions on the simple ground that they should not suffer in their pensions compared with colleagues who did not serve in the war.
The reason for that distinction—it might almost be called discrimination—is simple. Members of the Overseas Civil Service were, technically speaking, employed by colonial Governments and no colonial Government was obliged, nor was any Government after independence expected, to pay the pensions of their expatriates beyond that appropriate to their actual service in the colony. Her Majesty's Government alone had the power and responsibility to pay the comparatively small sum involved but have always refused to do so, although the claim has been considered at the highest level. What my right hon. Friend the Minister of State now tells complainants is:
As you know this matter went forward to the 1983 Public Expenditure Survey where it received very careful consideration. I am afraid we were forced to conclude that it would not be possible to accommodate such a large and continuing commitment among the numerous claims on available resources. I am sure you will appreciate the overriding need to contain public expenditure: this is an example of the hard choices the government has to make. Given the continuing need to contain public expenditure it would not be right for me to hold out any hope that the position will ease, and that I might be able to reopen the issue in the foreseeable future.
I quote from a letter recently sent by my right hon. Friend.
The cost of what my right hon. Friend called "this large and continuing commitment" has been estimated by my right hon. Friend's Department at £3 million a year, and the number of people eligible at 4,600. These are probably over-estimates. In any case, the money could easily be found in savings elsewhere. A sum of £3 million, for example, is less than that now being wasted on the net cost of issuing dog licences. It is less than the cost of many unimportant items in the Government's research programme. No account is taken of the clawback in income tax. The number of people involved is declining every year with the deaths of the people concerned, most of whom are elderly. On the other hand, the small sum involved in each case could make a significant difference to the comfort of men and women in their declining years who served their country exceptionally well.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: I am glad to have the opportunity to say a few words to support my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), who has raised this subject on the Adjournment debate.
This anomaly was first brought to my attention by a constituent who is a member of the Overseas Service Pensioners' Association. Since that time I have been extremely interested in the matter. I cannot agree with the Government's technical excuses for not treating these pensioners in a similar way to other public servants with regard to war credits. The Government have a moral duty which they should accept with good grace.
Relatively speaking, the amounts of money involved are extremely small but they would make a great deal of difference to the pensioners concerned. If the sums were granted to the pensioners, they would feel they had been treated in an equitable way in comparison with the other public servants. I agree with the cogent arguments presented by my hon. Friend and I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister to reconsider the matter.

Mr. Alan Howarth: Some of our most distinguished citizens will share my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) for raising this question on the Adjournment.
The unwillingness of successive Governments to recognise, for pensionable purposes, the war service of colonial civil servants is a regrettable, deplorable, failure. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will acknowledge that the time has come for the Government to accept that they must shoulder these undoubtedly strong moral obligations.
The colonial civil servants were recruited by the Government and were servants of the Crown. They have as much right to recognition as other servants of the Crown—home civil servants, officers of local government or teachers. They bore the burden and the heat of the day, and they served often in the most arduous of conditions. They made considerable personal sacrifices, born out of dedication and devotion. Their services are overdue for recognition.
We should also acknowledge that the end of the empire in the 1950s and 1960s meant for some, termination of their career and considerable difficulties in finding new employment and further pension opportunities. That strengthens the moral argument in favour of our case, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will be able to respond to it.
There has certainly been discrimination. There is no conceivable reason why the Government should draw a distinction between colonial civil servants and others. On a technical level, it is arguable that they were not employees of the United Kingdom. Government, but, as I have said, they were recruited by the Colonial Office and were servants of the Crown. That factor should be regarded as paramount by the Government.
My right hon. Friend the Minister is altogether too honest and benevolent a man to ignore such considerations. I hope that he agrees that the sum involved in putting right that wrong amounts to about £3 million and that, in all the circumstances of today, the Government should be willing to find it.

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Timothy Raison): The House has listened carefully to the arguments put so clearly and directly by my hon. Friends the Members for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), and for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth). Obviously, this topic is not discussed very often in the House. However, expenditure on Colonial Service pensions accounts for about £140 million this year. Incidentally, that is about one tenth of my Department's total expenditure, and the administration of those pensions to some 46,000 people is a major task of the Department.
I and my officials devote considerable time and effort to dealing with the questions raised on behalf of overseas pensioners by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington, by other hon. Members and by the Overseas Service Pensioners Association; and rightly so. Of course, I endorse the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington about the quality of the work carried out by our Colonial Service. Its reputation will not be forgotten, but it was nevertheless good to be reminded of it again tonight. We are rightly proud of it.
There is no disagreement on the basic point that the people involved have rendered great service to the United Kingdom, and, in particular, to the colonial territories in which they were employed. In my job there are inevitably many pressures on me to find new sums of money. That applies to overseas pensioners as well as to the general demands in connection with the aid programme. I receive a steady stream of letters, asking for more money for one thing or another. I am talking about not just the wide range of Overseas Development Administration activities but pensions too.
Over the years, the Overseas Service Pensioners Association has been active in proposing either that the field of people who benefit under the arrangements should be widened or, alternatively, that the benefits should be improved. War service credit for post-war entrants to the Colonial Service is an example of the second kind. We have always tried to give it very careful consideration. The argument that my hon. Friends have put tonight was put with equal vigour to my predecessor, the late Sir Neil Marten, and myself. I fully understand the substance of the case—that, since the concession had been extended to the main British public service groups in the 1970s to bring them into line with the Home Civil Service, it should in fairness be granted to overseas pensioners as well. It has also been argued that the cost of doing this for overseas pensioners—the figure of more than £3 million a year has been quoted previously and again tonight—is insignificant. But that cost could run for many years.
It is worth remembering that there are two types of war service credit. The first applies to officers who were in pensionable public service employment immediately before military service in the second world war, and whose careers were interrupted by the time that they spent in the armed forces. The war service of that group of officers counts in full towards their public service pensions. Colonial and United Kingdom public servants enjoy equal rights in that regard.
The second type of war service credit applies to officers who entered public service immediately after demobilisation. United Kingdom officers are allowed to count half of their military service for pension purposes. This puts them on a par with civil servants who were taken on during the war years on an unestablished basis.
The war service concession for post-war entrants was granted to United Kingdom civil servants in 1946. and to the main United Kingdom public sector groups, such as police, firemen, prison officers, teachers, Health Service workers and local government staff, in the 1970s. These arrangements, however, do not extend to colonial public servants, whose pensionable service was reckoned only from the date of their appointment to the Colonial Service.
It is difficult at this time to establish precisely why war service credit was not extended to the Colonial Service immediately after the second world war. Such evidence as there is suggests that wartime conditions of service in the Home Civil Service and Colonial Service were judged not to be on a par, so there was no automatic justification for treating officers in the same way.
In the case of the Home Civil Service, the original concession in 1946 was introduced to remove an anomaly which would otherwise have arisen between war-rime entrants and post-war entrants to the Home Civil Service. The Superannuation Act 1935 provided that the unestablished service of staff who subsequently became established without a break in service should reckon at one


half its length for superannuation purposes. Recruitment to the Home Civil Service during the war was on an unestablished basis. Those who stayed on after the war would have been at an advantage, therefore, compared with those whose entry to the Civil Service was delayed by their war service. The 1946 Act simply provided that ex-service men and women should be treated no less generously in this respect than those who had entered the Civil Service during the war.
As I understand it, the same anomaly did not arise in the Colonial Service or, at any rate, did not arise in anything like the same degree. The terms of recruitment to the Colonial Service during the war varied from territory to territory and according to the particular discipline. Recruitment during the war years was also on a very much smaller scale—about 200 appointments a year, compared with 1,200 to 1,500 a year after the war.
This serves to underline the point that colonial pension scheme regulations did not, and should not, automatically mirror those of the United Kingdom public service. The provisions differed in several respects, often to the advantage of the overseas pensioner. For example, overseas pensioners have a retirement age of 55 rather than 60 and their pensions are inflation-proofed from that age. Unlike home civil servants, they can choose, within limits, how much of their pension may be commuted. They had the right to retire at independence on compensation terms which were by no means ungenerous. Many officers were able to pursue successful second careers having retired from overseas service. My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington is an example. It is difficult to arrive at a comparison of the relative worth of benefits from different superannuation arrangements, but I think that it would be generally accepted that the provisions for former Colonial Service officers, taken as a whole, are a fair recompense for past service. In some respects, the terms for the two categories differed. In certain respects, the colonial servants received favourable treatment.
It was against this general background that in 1983 we looked into the question of war service credit for post-war entrants to the Colonial Service. The conclusion then, among many hard and difficult choices, was that the resources could not be found. That remains the position. The Government are committed to the firm control of public expenditure. It is an unavoidable consequence of our policy that many claims, many of them worthy in themselves, for extra resources of one kind or another cannot be accommodated.
It has been argued that the cost involved is minimal. I cannot accept that. Although the figure of £3 million has been cited in the debate, and was cited by us in 1983, my Department has carried out more recent work, based on a random sample of pensioners' records, which has shown that the costs could be significantly higher—perhaps £5 million to £6 million a year. Those are sample figures. I am not claiming that they are exactly right, but they indicate a higher figure than that cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington. It must be accepted that sums of this order raise public expenditure implications for the programmes for which I am responsible. Additional resources would have to be found if war service credit were to be granted to Colonial Service pensioners.
There is strong feeling on this issue. My hon. Friends have put the case tonight and, over the years, I have received quite a lot of correspondence on it. I hope that my hon. Friends will recognise our concern to strike the appropriate balance between the need to control public expenditure and demands on my Department and the claims of overseas pensioners for enhanced benefits. I believe, as I have tried to show, that, on the whole, overseas pensioners are by no means ill-served by the arrangements which successive Governments have put in place over the years and by the scale of the provisions now made for them. I am afraid that I have to say that, although my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington has argued his case cogently and I accept that there is strong feeling on this matter, I am not able to give my hon. Friend the assurance for which he has asked.

Afghanistan

Viscount Cranborne: I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development for his willingness to answer an Adjournment debate twice in one evening. That goes way beyond the call of duty. I am grateful to him for the good humour he has shown in contemplating such a prospect.
I should like to raise the subject of aid to alleviate the severe difficulties experienced in Afghanistan by the population that remains in that unfortunate country. My right hon. Friend has rightly many times drawn the attention of the House to the Government's generous help to refugees in Pakistan. At least 3 million of those unfortunate people have been driven from their homes by a cruel conflict in their native country. My right hon. Friend's Department is giving direct about £4·8 million to the refugees. About £1 million is being given via the EEC for the same purpose. Of course, I welcome that.
Those of us who have visited the refugee camps know that, by and large, the money is extremely well spent. It is recognised that, although the refugees in Pakistan are treated well and are relatively well off by refugee standards, the real need is inside Afghanistan. On 13 March this year, I was delighted to note the unanimity in the House when my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) raised this matter in an Adjournment debate. My right hon. Friend the Minister need look no further than to the comments of the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) who replied to the debate on behalf of the Opposition. The hon. Gentleman stated.
I look forward to hearing how the Minister responds, particularly to the request for appropriate mechanisms for channelling aid to those who suffer within the country. I agree with what the hon. Member for Dorset, South said about the need for a Government response on this. He would be the first to recognise that in the peculiar circumstances of Afghanistan, probably that response will have to be through non-governmental organisations such as his, because of the flexibility that they can bring. I congratulate that voluntary organisation on the work it has already done, and I trust that the Minister will respond positively to what has been said."—[Official Report, 13 March, 1986; Vol. 93, c. 1213.]
I hope that my right hon. Friend will take note of the unanimity of view expressed in that debate.
The services were always poor in Afghanistan, even before this latest conflict. It is quite clear that a central administration which was poor and which could not provide any sort of development aid before 1979 is wholly incapable of doing that now, when most of the country is in the hands of people opposed to the Kabul regime. It is important for us to recognise the very large number of people indeed who have been displaced. Not only have they taken refuge outside the country—3 million in Pakistan and perhaps another 1·5 million in Iran—but very large numbers have also been driven from their homes to become internal refugees. There is, therefore, a crying need for emergency aid of a humanitarian kind, particularly food and medical services.
My right hon. Friend will know that the organisation to which the hon. Member for Swansea, East referred during the course of that last debate is one of which I have the honour to be chairman, a registered charity called Afghanaid. I think that my right hon. Friend will agree that it has begun to establish a record for being able to

administer, in particular, food programmes inside the country on a fairly substantial scale. Not only can we propose the programmes but we can carry them out and, equally important, we can monitor the results. All those who have been donors to our food programme have admitted that the monitoring which has been carried out under what are necessarily extraordinarily difficult circumstances has been very satisfactory. I would be interested if my right hon. Friend could say something about that in his reply.
Apart from emergency aid, we ought also to consider development aid. Afghanistan was always a very poor country. Once the immediate emergency is under control—and much needs to be done—we should consider the question of development aid, which must include education and agricultural research and development. For all these projects, it is also essential that, if we are to carry them out, they should be based on professional and sensible research. It is impossible to determine the needs unless professional people are sent into the country to interview refugees and to decide what is needed and where.
If my right hon. Friend could look favourably on projects of this kind, he should stipulate that the proposals be based on the kind of research which is now becoming possible, thanks to the co-ordination of the various voluntary agencies which have become so active inside Afghanistan. In that context I would like to mention a federation of voluntary agencies interested in sending help into Afghanistan for the displaced persons there.
We have heard many rumours of late to the effect that the Soviets would like to withdraw from Afghanistan, rumours that I take with a pinch of salt. However, and my right hon. Friend must forgive me for being biased, if such a splendid thing should occur, we would have to consider how we should consult the refugees and indeed the whole Afghan population on their needs. We must also decide what mechanisms there should be for distributing aid if the Soviets withdraw, and perhaps if such an eventuality should occur, we should examine such possibilities as well.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for listening to this short debate, and I hope that he will be able to give some sort of reassurance to the people who deserve our help and who, for political reasons, have not been able to receive the help that their fellow citizens outside the country have.

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Timothy Raison): My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranborne) has a deep commitment to the cause of the people of Afghanistan who have suffered so terribly under the recent onslaught on them. He has spoken, as he has before, with considerable eloquence about the problems. The British Government regard the situation in Afghanistan seriously. The disruption and devastation caused by the Soviet occupation forces are a matter of the greatest concern.
Perhaps it may help the House if I touch briefly on what we see to be some of the aims of Soviet policy. The occupying troops and the regime forces are waging a callous and ruthless war against the resistance with all the weapons at their disposal. They seek out and ambush convoys, try to locate and destroy bases and do all that they can to crush the courageous opposition. We firmly support the courageous struggle of the Afghan people.
The Soviets are only too aware of the almost total rejection of the regime and its Soviet backers and of the resulting support given by the population to the Mujahadin with transport, communications or supplies. They have therefore followed a deliberate policy of displacing the rural population, either to neighbouring countries or into Afghan cities, making it easier to control the people and to isolate and identify the resistance. They do this through reprisals for Mujahadin attacks, destroying whole villages and massacring the inhabitants and by destroying rural infrastructure. Fields are laid waste, irrigation channels bombed and the lands mined. I do not propose to rehearse again the points covered by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary in the House on 13 March, but any hon. Member wishing to discover more details may consult the report produced for the United Nations Secretary-General by Mr. Ermacora which is in the Library, and which presents a devasting picture of the cruel events happening in Afghanistan.
There has never been the closest Government control in large areas of Afghanistan, but the Soviet and regime policy has resulted in the displacement within Afghanistan of some 1 million people deprived of their usual support for food, health care and education. The Government recognise that it is important that we should do all that we can to help them to maintain the best possible existence in their own country, to prevent them fleeing to add to the statistics of helpless refugees in neighbouring states. There they would become more wretched, a burden on the international community and on even the most generous of host countries, and their flight would contribute further to the breakdown of the traditional cultural and structure of society in Afghanistan.
Soviet troop withdrawal and the restoration of the rights of the Afghan people remain the key to the problem. Any settlement must take into account the position of the resistance and the refugees, or it will never stick. We strongly support the United Nations Secretary-General's efforts to secure a political settlement on the basis of successive United Nations resolutions. Mr. Gorbachev has talked of early withdrawal, but the aggressive pursuit of the war and the Sovietisation of Afghanistan belie these statements. We appeal to the Soviet Union to translate these words into reality.
As the House knows, we have already supported various operations by the Afghan Support Committee and Afghanaid. We financed the 1984 report by Dr. D'Souza to which my hon. Friend referred, on the threat of famine and have subsequently provided £50,000 to Afghanaid to relieve famine in Afghanistan. I pay tribute to the skill and dedication of those in Afghanaid who conducted this difficult operation.
My hon. Friend talked about the future. He must recognise the great difficulty that can occur in giving direct assistance to those displaced persons in Afghanistan. We must be realistic, and I cannot at the moment give blanket assurances about the next stage. I will examine carefully proposals put to me by Afghanaid or by similar organisations. Our policy is to give assistance to destitute Afghan refugees and displaced persons wherever they might be, those who have been forced to leave their homes because of the fighting in Afghanistan.
As I said, it is difficult to give aid in a country that is dominated by a far from friendly power—

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Donald Thompson.]

Mr. Raison: My hon. Friend talked about two aspects of the matter—the immediate relief operation and the need for longer-term development. As far as the needs of the relief operations are concerned, as he knows, we are studying carefully the reports of what has happened. We have monitored the accounts put forward to show how the £50,000 that we gave to Afghanaid, has been spent. I understand that the accounts were presented in Pushtu, but we have managed to translate them. It seems that the money has been spent in the ways that it was intended to be used. We will, however, think carefully about how we will respond next.
My hon. Friend will recognise that the long-term developments are particularly difficult. The normal conditions for long-term development aid are that it is on a Government to Government basis. It requires detailed and careful planning and it is normally a response to something put forward by the Government of the country involved.
None of these conditions apply to Afghanistan. There is some difference of dimension between supplying short-term relief supplies and in trying to become involved in the longer-term development processes. I cannot say at present that I will undertake to embark on long-term development programmes. If proposals are put to us we will consider them carefully. The real hope for long-term development must be a return to normality and to freedom in Afghanistan.
We strongly advise the stand of the Afghan refugees and of their neighbours in Pakistan. The plight of the 3 million refugees and the difficult position of Pakistan was brought home to my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs during his recent visit. During his visit he announced a £4·8 million bilateral aid programme for Afghan refugees which marks an increase of 17 per cent. over last year. That demonstrates that we have not forgotten these people. That sum represents a significant increase in aid and a significant step on the Government's part to show that we realise that the problem is not one that can simply be tucked away and that we must continue to bear it in mind.
We also provide food through the European Community. Seven million pounds worth of food aid will be delivered in 1986 of which our share is £1·4 million. Since the Soviet invasion, we have given more than £32 million to these people. That money has been donated mostly through the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and also through organisations such as the Red Cross and various British charities.
We are also developing a new scheme for training refugees. We have already given substantial assistance to the Allama Iqbal Open University in Pakistan, particularly in the vocational and mass education field. We are planning—by translating the material into Pushtu—to extend the work of the University into the refugee camps. That will have the advantage that the facilities will be available to the refugees without displacing Pakistanis as would be the case with conventional educational institutions. In addition, as the House will know, we are now providing medical treatment for Afghans who have been wounded in the fighting.
I visited Pakistan two years ago. I went to Peshawar where I met some of the refugees from Afghanistan who told me of their troubles and I visited the hospital where they were being treated for their wounds. Anyone who visits that place will recognise the extent of the cruel struggle that is taking place in that area. Therefore, it is right that we should be talking about this again in the House this evening. I would only say that I respect what

my hon. Friend has to say about these matters. I shall always listen carefully to him and consider carefully what we can do. The Government's record in helping the refugees has been a creditable one, but, given the nature of their plight, that is no more than should be the case and that is something that we must not forget.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at five minutes past Ten o'clock.